Unnamed: 0
int64 0
241k
| Full-Document
stringlengths 96
265k
| Citation
stringlengths 1
50k
| Extract
stringlengths 34
30.6k
| Abstract
stringlengths 8
8.56k
| #CharsDocument
int64 96
265k
| #CharsAbstract
int64 8
8.56k
| #CharsExtract
int64 34
30.6k
| #WordsDocument
int64 20
41.6k
| #WordsAbstract
int64 4
1.34k
| #WordsExtract
int64 11
4.68k
| AbsCompressionRatio
float64 0
0.99
| ExtCompressionRatio
float64 0
1
| OriginalDebateFileName
stringlengths 19
104
| DebateCamp
stringclasses 30
values | Tag
stringclasses 15
values | Year
stringclasses 11
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5,500 |
The bottom line is that perhaps a few pennies of the original Western taxpayer’s dollar are actually spent as might be designed and implemented by a benevolent and effective social planner. The rest is wasted or diverted. Easterly suggests that a trillion dollars has been spent on foreign aid since World War II. But how much has actually been delivered wisely to the intended recipients of that aid? Viewed from the perspective of a dollar traveling from the Western taxpayer’s pocket to the intended ultimate recipient, the failure of foreign aid is not all that puzzling
|
Shleifer, ’10 [November 2010, Andrei Shleifer is a Russian American economist. He served as project director of the Harvard Institute for International Development's Russian aid project from its inauguration in 1992 until it was shut down in 1997, “Peter Bauer and the Failure of Foreign Aid”, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2010/11/cj29n3-1.pdf]
|
a few pennies of the original Western taxpayer’s dollar are actually spent as might be designed and implemented by a benevolent and effective social planner. The rest is wasted or diverted. But how much has actually been delivered wisely to the intended recipients of that aid the failure of foreign aid is not all that puzzling
|
Foreign aid fails- doesn’t go to intended place
| 574 | 47 | 328 | 96 | 8 | 56 | 0.083333 | 0.583333 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,501 |
Because of Venezuela’s oil wealth and relatively high per capita income level, the United States has traditionally only provided small amounts of foreign assistance to Venezuela. In recent years, assistance has focused on counternarcotics and support for democracy programs. Table 1 below shows U.S. assistance level to Venezuela since FY2006. From FY2002-FY2007, Venezuela received small amounts of U.S. assistance under the State Department’s Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI) focusing on counternarcotics cooperation and judicial reform support. Since FY2008, no counternarcotics assistance has been requested for Venezuela.
|
Sullivan, ’09 [11/17/09, Mark P. Sullivan is Specialist in Latin American Affairs, “Venezuela: Issues in the 111th Congress”, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/133508.pdf]
|
Because of Venezuela’s oil wealth and relatively high per capita income level, the United States has traditionally only provided small amounts of foreign assistance to Venezuela. assistance has focused on counternarcotics and support for democracy programs Venezuela received small amounts of U.S. assistance under the State Department’s Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI) focusing on counternarcotics cooperation and judicial reform support. Since FY2008, no counternarcotics assistance has been requested for Venezuela.
|
Aid to Venezuela Low Now
| 629 | 24 | 522 | 85 | 5 | 69 | 0.058824 | 0.811765 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,502 |
In Venezuela, U.S. efforts to destabilize the government of Hugo Chavez were unsuccessful and instead strengthened the morale of leftist movements across the region.¶ Subsequently, regional leaders either nationalized industries or broke agreements with international oil corporations or others revolving around natural resources, as occurred in Bolivia with the gas companies and in Venezuela with the oil company. As these social movements found solidarity, U.S. influence was weakened. None of the promises of better standards of living from neo-liberal policies had materialized, and free market policies had bankrupted farmers. Deregulation destroyed the banks, and the middle class lost their savings.¶ At the hemispheric level, the U.S.’s proposal to remove barriers to trade through the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) was subsequently rejected by Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, and Brazil in the mid-2000s. Subsequently, ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) was born as a counterpart to the FTAA, changing the dynamics in the hemisphere. The Alliance posed as a new model, with the purpose being international cooperation based on the idea of social and economic integration of Latin America and the Caribbean countries. China appeared as an alternative market for the sale of raw materials from Latin America, reducing dependence on U.S. markets.¶ Failed attempts by the United States to destabilize Chavez’s administration radicalized the Venezuelan government's position, which privileged sub-regional energy agreements and broke contracts with American oil companies as the decade progressed.
|
Liza Torres Alvarado, 5/13/13, former diplomat in the Mission of Venezuela to the Organization of American states, “The U.S. Must Re-evaluate its Foreign Policy in Latin America””
|
U.S. efforts to destabilize Chavez were unsuccessful and instead strengthened the morale of leftist movements Subsequently, regional leaders nationalized industries broke agreements with international oil corporations or others revolving around natural resources As these social movements found solidarity, U.S. influence was weakened None of the promises of better standards of living from neo-liberal policies had materialized, and free market policies had bankrupted farmers. Deregulation destroyed the banks, and the middle class lost their savings.¶ Failed attempts by the United States to destabilize Chavez broke contracts with American oil companies
|
US aid in Venezuela strengthened left movement, broke agreement to oil cooperation, bankrupted farmers and decimated the bank—turns the case
| 1,628 | 140 | 657 | 235 | 20 | 89 | 0.085106 | 0.378723 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,503 |
Later studies examining the effects of aid on economic growth found distinctions between long and short-term economic growth. Many theorists in this group believe economic growth occurs in the presence of aid over a short time period. However, it is noted that long-term negative impacts greatly overshadow most short-term gains, thus making the overall impact of aid on economic growth a depressing outcome (Lockwood 1990; Duc 2006;and Malik 2008). Large foreign aid inflows also affect the real exchange rate of dependent countries and undermine the competitiveness of their export sector. This occurrence is often called the „Dutch disease‟ (Rajan and Subramanian 2005). Dutch disease-type effects have been noted in a number of African aid recipients (Younger 1992).
|
Castrillo, ’11 [May 2011, Anna Castrillo is B.A., Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2008, “FOREIGN AID‟S IMPACT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH: CONDITIONAL ON ACCOUNTABLE INSTITUTIONS?”, http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04142011-220952/unrestricted/Castrillothesis.pdf]
|
the effects of aid on economic growth found distinctions between long and short-term economic growth , it is noted that long-term negative impacts greatly overshadow most short-term gains, thus making the overall impact of aid on economic growth a depressing outcome foreign aid inflows also affect the real exchange rate of dependent countries and undermine the competitiveness of their export sector Dutch disease ). Dutch disease-type effects have been noted in a number of Africa
|
Foreign Aid Stagantes Growth and causes Dutch Disease
| 770 | 53 | 483 | 117 | 8 | 75 | 0.068376 | 0.641026 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,504 |
The voluminous literature on the effects of foreign aid on growth has generated little evidence that aid has any positive effect on growth. This seems to be true regardless of whether we focus on different types of aid (social versus economic), different types of donors, different timing for the impact of aid, or different types of borrowers (see here for details). But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps we are just missing something important or are not doing the research correctly. One way to ascertain whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence is to go beyond the aggregate effect from aid to growth and look for the channels of transmission. If we can find positive channels (for example, aid helps increase public and private investment), then the “absence of evidence” conclusion needs to be taken seriously. On the other hand, if we can find negative channels (for example, aid stymies domestic institutional development), the case for the “evidence of absence” becomes stronger. One such channel is the impact of aid on manufacturing exports. Manufacturing exports has been the predominant mode for escape from underdevelopment for many developing countries, especially in Asia. So, what aid does to manufacturing exports can be one key piece of the puzzle in understanding the aggregate effect of aid. In this paper forthcoming in the Journal of Development Economics, Raghuram Rajan and I show that aid tends to depress the growth of exportable goods. This will not be the last word on the subject because the methodology in this paper, as in much of the aid literature, could be improved. But the innovation in this paper is not to look at the variation in the data across countries (which is what almost the entire aid literature does) but at the variation within countries across sectors. We categorize goods by how exportable they could be for low-income countries, and find that in countries that receive more aid, more exportable sectors grow substantially more slowly than less exportable ones. The numbers suggest that in countries that receive additional aid of 1 percent of GDP, exportable sectors grow more slowly by 0.5 percent per year (and clothing and footwear sectors that are particularly exportable in low-income countries grow slower by 1 percent per year). We also provide suggestive evidence that the channel through which this effect is felt is the exchange rate. In other words, aid tends to make a country less competitive (reflected in an overvalued exchange rate) which in turn depresses the prospects of the more exportable sectors. In the jargon, this is the famous “Dutch Disease” effect of aid. Our research suggests that one important dimension that donors and recipients should be mindful of (among many others that Bill Easterly has focused on) is the impact on the aid-receiving country’s competitiveness and export capability. That vital channel for long run growth should not be impaired by foreign aid.
|
Subramanian, ’09 [12/18/09, Arvind Subramanian is Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and Center for Global Development, and Senior Research Professor at Johns Hopkins University, “The effects of foreign aid: Dutch Disease”, http://aidwatchers.com/2009/12/the-effects-of-foreign-aid-dutch-disease/]
|
literature on the effects of foreign aid on growth has generated little evidence that aid has any positive effect on growth. such channel is the impact of aid on manufacturing exports. Manufacturing exports has been the predominant mode for escape from underdevelopment for many developing countries what aid does to manufacturing exports Rajan and I show that aid tends to depress the growth of exportable goods that in countries that receive more aid, more exportable sectors grow substantially more slowly than less exportable ones In other words, aid tends to make a country less competitive which in turn depresses the prospects of the more exportable sectors. In the jargon, this is the famous “Dutch Disease” effect of aid. the impact on the aid-receiving country’s competitiveness and export capability. That vital channel for long run growth should not be impaired by foreign aid.
|
Aid causes Dutch Disease
| 2,987 | 24 | 889 | 487 | 4 | 142 | 0.008214 | 0.291581 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,505 |
The argument against eliminating USAID includes many positive reinforcing claims. USAID is the most experienced and tested foreign aid organization in the U.S. government. It has a lot of expertise and foreign operators. It has a structure in place that can deliver billions of dollars in goods and services. It has professional leadership and personnel. It may have the ability to change its ways and culture and even its standard operating procedures. If the public and/or Congress have issues with it, the problems should be addressed and resolved by USAID. If USAID is unable or unwilling to change other policy alternatives should be considered. So far, USAID has done everything it has been told to do. In addition, USAID has nearly 2,000 employees and they are experienced and skilled. They are a known quantity with the foreign recipients. U.S. credibility is also on the line. Shaking things up may raise doubts about the U.S.’s commitment and long-term capabilities. Since there is no major opposition to USAID on either the domestic or international fronts, it would seem premature and unnecessary to eliminate such a large bureaucracy without compelling reasons to do so.
|
Dobransky, ’11 [March 2011, Steve Dobransky is an Adjunct Professor at Cleveland State University. He is completing his Ph.D. studies at Kent State University, majoring in International Relations and Justice Studies. He has an M.A. from Ohio University and a B.A. from Cleveland State University, “The Coming Crisis in US Foreign Aid: Policy Options for the 21st Century”, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2011/0104/comm/dobransky_coming.html]
|
The argument against eliminating USAID USAID is the most experienced and tested foreign aid organization in the U.S. government It has a structure in place that can deliver billions of dollars in goods and services. It may have the ability to change its ways and culture and even its standard operating procedure problems should be addressed and resolved by USAID USAID has done everything it has been told to do. Shaking things up may raise doubts about the U.S.’s commitment and long-term capabilities Since there is no major opposition to USAID on either the domestic or international fronts, it would seem premature and unnecessary to eliminate without compelling reasons to do so.
|
USAID is a good organization- no alternatives
| 1,183 | 45 | 685 | 191 | 7 | 112 | 0.036649 | 0.586387 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,506 |
The opposition to this policy option is obvious. Ending all foreign aid could cause massive disruptions throughout the world, especially if it is done precipitately. It may lead to greater poverty, starvation, and violence. It may create large amounts of instability. And it will lead to a major loss of U.S. power, influence, leadership, and credibility. It also will make the U.S. and others look very selfish and cold-hearted. And, since foreign aid has altered so much of the world, it will be a long time before recipients can make the necessary adjustments in a world without foreign aid. The whole purpose of foreign aid now is to help assist less fortunate countries make their way out of poverty and become sufficient enough so as not to receive any foreign aid. Ending foreign aid before this goal is accomplished would make the U.S. and others look like massive failures. And, if other countries like China continue foreign aid while the U.S. stops it, then they may gain substantially in world power and influence at the expense of the U.S. Foreign aid produces some degree of influence and can promote U.S. foreign policy objectives and values, however limited. Whether or not foreign aid brings countries out of poverty, it does assist in stabilizing many countries, moderating and neutralizing many people and negative forces and encouraging incremental improvements. And, if giving out even small bags of grain and other supplements help get people by on a daily basis and reduce their anxieties and potential desperation, then even this can contribute to maintaining order and the U.S.-created global system. U.S. foreign aid expenditures are just a tiny percentage of its overall budget and it has relatively few negatives for the U.S. while it has the potential of producing some positive gains.
|
Dobransky, ’11 [March 2011, Steve Dobransky is an Adjunct Professor at Cleveland State University. He is completing his Ph.D. studies at Kent State University, majoring in International Relations and Justice Studies. He has an M.A. from Ohio University and a B.A. from Cleveland State University, “The Coming Crisis in US Foreign Aid: Policy Options for the 21st Century”, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2011/0104/comm/dobransky_coming.html]
|
Ending all foreign aid could cause massive disruptions throughout the world It may lead to greater poverty, starvation, and violence. It may create large amounts of instability. And it will lead to a major loss of U.S. power, influence, leadership, and credibility the U.S. and others look very selfish and cold-hearted. it will be a long time before recipients can make the necessary adjustments in a world without foreign aid. foreign aid now is to help assist less fortunate countries make their way out of poverty and become sufficient enough so as not to receive any foreign aid. Foreign aid produces some degree of influence and can promote U.S. foreign policy objectives and values foreign aid does assist in stabilizing many countries, moderating and neutralizing many people and negative forces and encouraging incremental improvements
|
Foreign Aid works- Solves Hard and Soft Power
| 1,814 | 45 | 844 | 298 | 8 | 134 | 0.026846 | 0.449664 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,507 |
In the broadest terms, national and international efforts to promote economic development around the world during the past fifty years have been highly successful, with the notable exception of large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, which remain trapped in extreme poverty. The biggest development successes have come in Asia, a vast region with more than half the world’s population. Economic growth in China, India, Korea, and many other countries— along with public investments in health, education, and infrastructure—have powered the most rapid improvement in living standards in world history. Aid has played an enormous role in those gains. The fact that Asia can feed itself is due in no small part to the Green Revolution that began in the 1960s, heavily supported by the U.S. public and philanthropic sectors. The fact that disease burdens have come down sharply is due in important part to global aid successes such as smallpox eradication, widespread immunization coverage, malaria control (outside of Africa), and the uptake of oral rehydration to fight death from diarrhea. The fact that population growth has slowed markedly is a success of aid-supported family planning efforts, which the United States has helped to initiate since the 1960s. The fact that countries such as Korea, Malaysia, and Thailand became manufacturing successes grew out of U.S. and Japanese aid for core infrastructure and technological upgrading.
|
Sachs, ’09 [2009, Jeffret Sachs is an American economist and Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, “Can Foreign Aid Reduce Poverty?”, http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/about/director/2009/Controversies%20in%20Globalization%20Chapter%203_Can%20foreign%20aid%20reduce%20poverty.pdf]
|
national and international efforts to promote economic development around the world during the past fifty years have been highly successful . The biggest development successes have come in Asia, a vast region with more than half the world’s population Aid has played an enormous role in those gains , heavily supported by the U.S. public and philanthropic sectors. The fact that disease burdens have come down sharply is due in important part to global aid successes such as smallpox eradication The fact that population growth has slowed markedly is a success of aid-supported family planning efforts, manufacturing successes grew out of U.S. and Japanese aid for core infrastructure and technological upgrading.
|
Foreign Aid is good- empirically proven
| 1,434 | 39 | 713 | 222 | 6 | 111 | 0.027027 | 0.5 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,508 |
We need to allocate more aid to countries that are implementing sensible development strategies, like many of those forty countries with PRSPs. We should get more of it to local communities to decide how best to use it so they can hire or fire a teacher, sink a well, buy a grain mill, or build a clinic. We can support well-developed—dare I say it—plans and strategies to build rural road networks to connect the poor to markets (which have high rates of returns), or to scale-up nation-wide immunization programs, which have saved millions of lives. Whatever the activity, donors and recipients need to establish clear goals, announce them publicly, and be held accountable through independent evaluation. Let’s stay away from the simple absolutes on either end of the debate. Instead let’s learn from the failures and build on the successes, and not be afraid to recognize either.
|
Radelet, ’06 [11/30/06, Steve Radelet Steven Radelet is Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Development. His work focuses on economic growth, poverty reduction, foreign aid, and debt, primarily in Africa and Asia, “The Effectiveness of Foreign Aid”, http://www.cfr.org/foreign-aid/effectiveness-foreign-aid/p12077]
|
We need to allocate more aid to countries that are implementing sensible development strategies We should get more of it to local communities to decide how best to us . We can support well-developed—dare I say it—plans and strategies to build rural road networks to connect the poor to markets Whatever the activity, donors and recipients need to establish clear goals, announce them publicly, and be held accountable through independent evaluation. away from the simple absolutes on either end of the debate. Instead let’s learn from the failures and build on the successes, and not be afraid to recognize either.
|
Foreign Aid needs to be targeted better but can work
| 883 | 52 | 614 | 147 | 10 | 100 | 0.068027 | 0.680272 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,509 |
On economic growth, despite popular misconceptions, the vast bulk of research over the last decade has found that while aid is not the most important ingredient in stimulating growth, overall it has had a modest positive impact. Sure, lots of countries have done poorly. But several large aid recipients have done well, including Korea, Botswana, Taiwan, and more recently Mozambique, Ghana, and Tanzania. Egypt and Pakistan have tripled their incomes. The few studies that find no relationship between aid and growth are fragile, and rely on special and unrealistic assumptions, such as that each dollar of aid has the same impact with no diminishing returns, and that all aid is the same whether it is used to build roads or buy food for refugees.
|
Radelet, ’06 [11/27/06, Steve Radelet Steven Radelet is Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Development. His work focuses on economic growth, poverty reduction, foreign aid, and debt, primarily in Africa and Asia, “The Effectiveness of Foreign Aid”, http://www.cfr.org/foreign-aid/effectiveness-foreign-aid/p12077]
|
On economic growth, despite popular misconceptions, the vast bulk of research over the last decade has found that while aid is has had a modest positive impact. several large aid recipients have done well, including Korea, Botswana, Taiwan, and more recently Mozambique, Ghana, and Tanzania. The few studies that find no relationship between aid and growth are fragile, and rely on special and unrealistic assumptions, such as that each dollar of aid has the same impact with no diminishing returns, and that all aid is the same whether it is used to build roads or buy food for refugees
|
Aid has a Positive Impact on Growth- their studies are flawed
| 749 | 61 | 587 | 124 | 11 | 99 | 0.08871 | 0.798387 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,510 |
Types of foreign aid may be very diverse, and I do not have all of them in mind when writing this paper. Excluded are the types of aid like those covered by a humanitarian intervention, diplomatic and political aid, the aid through trade and preferential agreements, and debt service write offs. My article is focused on foreign development aid in its narrow meaning where one constituency helps another by granting goods and services, financial transfers and technical assistance. The total amount of foreign aid was more than $ 2,3 trillion over the last five decades.5 The size of the aid in the narrower sense in the world is estimated to be $60bn per year at the beginning of XXI century. This amount is equal to some 20% of foreign direct investment in non-developed countries
|
Prokopijević, ’07 [2007,Miroslav Prokopijević is a Professor at Catholic University of Louvain (UCL) - Institute for European Studies, “Why Foreign Aid Fails”, http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1452-595X/2007/1452-595X0701029P.pdf]
|
Types of foreign aid may be very diverse, and I do not have all of them in mind when writing this paper Excluded are humanitarian intervention, diplomatic and political aid, the aid through trade and preferential agreements, and debt service write offs. My article is focused on foreign development aid in its narrow meaning where one constituency helps another by granting goods and services, financial transfers and technical assistance. in the narrower sense in the world is estimated to be $60bn per year at the beginning of XXI century
|
Prokopijević’s study doesn’t assume the aff’s type of aid
| 782 | 57 | 540 | 134 | 9 | 89 | 0.067164 | 0.664179 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,511 |
There is a strong case for moving U.S. development assistance to a new, separate, cabinet-level Department for International Sustainable Development (DfISD). The new department would house the existing USAID, PEPFAR, the President’s Malaria Initiative, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and emerging initiatives in climate change, especially vis-à-vis the developing countries. The case for a separate department rests on the following principles: • The need to upgrade U.S. development assistance as a pillar of U.S. national security. • The need to improve U.S. government management and expertise in public health, climate change, agronomy, demography, environmental engineering, and economic development. • The need to work effectively with similar cabinet-level departments and ministries in partner countries. • The need to depoliticize development assistance, so that it can be directed at the long-term investments that are critical in the fight against poverty, hunger, disease, and deprivation. • The need for coherence of U.S. policies that impact international sustainable development, including ODA, trade relations with low-income countries, efforts on climate-change adaptation and mitigation, and efforts on global public health and disease control.
|
Sachs, ’09 [2009, Jeffret Sachs is an American economist and Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, “Can Foreign Aid Reduce Poverty?”, http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/about/director/2009/Controversies%20in%20Globalization%20Chapter%203_Can%20foreign%20aid%20reduce%20poverty.pdf]
|
There is a strong case for moving U.S. development assistance to a new, separate, cabinet-level Department for International Sustainable Development The new department would house the existing USAID, PEPFAR, the President’s Malaria Initiative, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and emerging initiatives in climate change The need to upgrade U.S. development assistance as a pillar of U.S. national security. • The need to improve U.S. government management and expertise in public health, climate change, agronomy, demography, environmental engineering, and economic development The need to work effectively with similar cabinet-level departments and ministries in partner countries. The need to depoliticize development assistance, so that it can be directed at the long-term investments that are critical in the fight against poverty, hunger, disease, and deprivation. The need for coherence of U.S. policies that impact international sustainable development, including ODA, trade relations with low-income countries,
|
Text: The United States federal government should move U.S. development assistance to a new, separate, cabinet-level Department for International Sustainable Development
| 1,269 | 169 | 1,023 | 176 | 21 | 140 | 0.119318 | 0.795455 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,512 |
The current system, in which USAID is a part of the Department of State, is failing. U.S. aid is excessively politicized by connecting aid with short-term foreign policy exigencies (such as the war in Iraq and the Israel-Palestine crisis). It would be very useful to insulate development aid from such short-term diplomatic pressures. Moreover, USAID has been gutted of much key talent and staffing, and the U.S. government is currently unable to attract the best young experts in development fields—and it will remain unable to do so until the status of sustainable development within the government is improved. The organizational upgrade in the United Kingdom from a mere subcabinet development agency (the Overseas Development Administration) to a cabinet-level department (the Department for International Development, DfID) has dramatically increased that nation’s standing, reputation, and expertise in the area of international development. DfID is far ahead of USAID as a global thoughtleader in development policy, and DfID’s departmental rank is playing a key role in that success.
|
Sachs, ’09 [2009, Jeffret Sachs is an American economist and Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, “Can Foreign Aid Reduce Poverty?”, http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/about/director/2009/Controversies%20in%20Globalization%20Chapter%203_Can%20foreign%20aid%20reduce%20poverty.pdf]
|
The current system, in which USAID is a part of the Department of State, is failing. U.S. aid is excessively politicized by connecting aid with short-term foreign policy exigencies has been gutted of much key talent and staffin it will remain unable to do so until the status of sustainable development within the government is improved United Kingdom has dramatically increased that nation’s standing, reputation, and expertise in the area of international development DfID is far ahead of USAID as a global thoughtleader in development policy,
|
CP Solves- UK Proves
| 1,092 | 20 | 545 | 165 | 4 | 86 | 0.024242 | 0.521212 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,513 |
The new U.S. cabinet-level department would have several specific tasks in its start-up years, in addition to the development challenges already described. DfISD would bring together countless aid programs now strewn in a disconnected way across the U.S. government. It would bolster technical competence (in health, agronomy, engineering, climate, hydrology, finance, and other areas related to sustainable development), and it would fix the procurement and contracting systems, widely regarded to be broken. It would promote results based aid delivery, with monitoring, accountability, and audits. DfISD would be much better placed than USAID to work with counterpart Ministries of International Development and to coordinate multilateral efforts. DfISD would promote partnerships with civil society and the private sector. Businesses, especially, would be encouraged to utilize their technologies (in sectors such as health, agriculture, energy, logistics, finance, and ICT) in partnership with the U.S. government and multilateral agencies.
|
Sachs, ’09 [2009, Jeffret Sachs is an American economist and Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, “Can Foreign Aid Reduce Poverty?”, http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/about/director/2009/Controversies%20in%20Globalization%20Chapter%203_Can%20foreign%20aid%20reduce%20poverty.pdf]
|
The new U.S. cabinet-level department would have several specific tasks in its start-up years DfISD would bring together countless aid programs now strewn in a disconnected way across the U.S. government. It would bolster technical competence ), and it would fix the procurement and contracting systems, widely regarded to be broken. It would promote results based aid delivery, with monitoring, accountability, and audits. better placed than USAID and to coordinate multilateral efforts. DfISD would promote partnerships with civil society and the private sector. Businesses, especially, would be encouraged to utilize their technologies in partnership with the U.S. government and multilateral agencies.
|
CP solves-Resolves Reasons why squo is bad
| 1,044 | 42 | 705 | 145 | 7 | 101 | 0.048276 | 0.696552 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,514 |
Conclusion Foreign aid involves a complex array of issues and problems. Based upon the policy analysis above, this paper concludes that it is best to merge all U.S. foreign aid operations into one new organization, i.e. Option #5. After more than half of century of foreign aid, it is time that the U.S. recognize the failures and limitations of a highly decentralized foreign aid system and its inability to adapt to the emerging new world order. The U.S. can no longer afford to have a divided group of foreign aid institutions. The existing system is weak and unfocused. The inability to have one unified policy and voice undermines the impact of U.S. foreign aid. The lack of concentration and coordinated vision increasingly threatens the U.S. power and influence throughout the world. With major domestic economic problems and a collection of security requirements that have greatly overextended America’s capabilities, it is increasingly imperative that foreign aid and other soft power instruments become much more effective and powerful. The current foreign aid system does not give the U.S. the essential capabilities and potential that it needs. Unifying the entire U.S. foreign aid establishment is the best means and chance for the U.S. to maximize its resources and influence. It will be highly beneficial for the U.S. and the world. A more powerful and successful foreign aid regime will be a universal good. The best personnel, resources, methods etc. of all the various foreign aid institutions can be consolidated into one entirely new organization. The slate will be clean, but the experience will be there. There will be a transition period but it will not last long. There are more than enough professionals who can “hit the ground running” in this new institution. The U.S foreign aid regime can be reinvigorated and the world can watch a determined America reform its institutions for the benefit of all. The U.S. should immediately begin the dismantling of its existing foreign aid institutions and the creation of an entirely new foreign aid structure. One supreme and monolithic voice, goal and power in the foreign aid realm. The U.S. should be very proactive in creating a foreign aid institution that can meet the global demands and challenges of the rest of this century and beyond. American national security and global development stand at the crossroads. Only a new foreign aid regime will be able to fulfill the U.S.’s and world’s goals and visions. So let a new foreign aid institution be built for a newly emerging world order that corresponds with American and international interests.
|
Dobransky, ’11 [March 2011, Steve Dobransky is an Adjunct Professor at Cleveland State University. He is completing his Ph.D. studies at Kent State University, majoring in International Relations and Justice Studies. He has an M.A. from Ohio University and a B.A. from Cleveland State University, “The Coming Crisis in US Foreign Aid: Policy Options for the 21st Century”, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2011/0104/comm/dobransky_coming.html]
|
Based upon the policy analysis above, this paper concludes that it is best to merge all U.S. foreign aid operations into one new organization, , it is time that the U.S. recognize the failures and limitations of a highly decentralized foreign aid system and its inability to adapt to the emerging new world order The existing system is weak and unfocused. The inability to have one unified policy and voice undermines the impact of U.S. foreign aid. The lack of concentration and coordinated vision increasingly threatens the U.S. power and influence throughout the world increasingly imperative that foreign aid and other soft power instruments become much more effective and powerful. . Unifying the entire U.S. foreign aid establishment is the best means and chance for the U.S. to maximize its resources and influence. The best of all the various foreign aid institutions can be consolidated into one entirely new organization. There will be a transition period but it will not last long. The U.S foreign aid regime can be reinvigorated and the world can watch a determined America reform its institutions for the benefit of all. The U.S. should immediately begin the dismantling of its existing foreign aid institutions and the creation of an entirely new foreign aid structure The U.S. should be very proactive in creating a foreign aid institution that can meet the global demands and challenges of the rest of this century and beyond. Only a new foreign aid regime will be able to fulfill the U.S.’s and world’s goals and vision
|
CP Solves Case, Soft Power- current structures prevent solvency
| 2,622 | 63 | 1,536 | 428 | 9 | 255 | 0.021028 | 0.595794 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,515 |
Option #7: Eliminate All U.S. Foreign Aid Organizations and Create One Central International Organization to Handle Foreign Aid This option presents a number of interesting points. The supporters for this option can argue that one central international organization is the most cost-efficient option for the major industrialized countries. It will eliminate much U.S. bureaucratic waste and inefficiencies. It will depoliticize the foreign aid regime. It will promote global unity and coordination. It will be able to fully concentrate all global resources on ending poverty and promoting economic development. It will encourage long-term and tailor-made solutions to complex problems. It will concentrate the best experts and experience into one international organization. And, it will allow better response times, adaptation, and monitoring of global socio-economic problems.
|
Dobransky, ’11 [March 2011, Steve Dobransky is an Adjunct Professor at Cleveland State University. He is completing his Ph.D. studies at Kent State University, majoring in International Relations and Justice Studies. He has an M.A. from Ohio University and a B.A. from Cleveland State University, “The Coming Crisis in US Foreign Aid: Policy Options for the 21st Century”, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2011/0104/comm/dobransky_coming.html]
|
Eliminate All U.S. Foreign Aid Organizations and Create One Central International Organization to Handle Foreign Aid that one central international organization is the most cost-efficient option for the major industrialized countries It will eliminate much U.S. bureaucratic waste and inefficiencies. It will depoliticize the foreign aid regime. It will promote global unity and coordination It will be able to fully concentrate all global resources on ending poverty and promoting economic development will concentrate the best experts and experience into one international organization. will allow better response times, adaptation, and monitoring of global socio-economic problems.
|
Text: The United States federal government should Eliminate All U.S. Foreign Aid Organizations and Create One Central International Organization to Handle Foreign Aid
| 878 | 166 | 684 | 124 | 23 | 94 | 0.185484 | 0.758065 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,516 |
Overall, this may be the basis for transforming the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) into what many people had always hoped that it would become. Until now, the OECD’s limited powers and finances, essentially, have been sole extensions of many state governments. The OECD can be more than a central coordination point and data distribution center. Under this option, it can become the primary political decision maker, holder of the purse and implementer of all international foreign aid. Every wealthy country in the world can unite behind it. All members can support and follow it in making foreign aid and economic development a top global priority.
|
Dobransky, ’11 [March 2011, Steve Dobransky is an Adjunct Professor at Cleveland State University. He is completing his Ph.D. studies at Kent State University, majoring in International Relations and Justice Studies. He has an M.A. from Ohio University and a B.A. from Cleveland State University, “The Coming Crisis in US Foreign Aid: Policy Options for the 21st Century”, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2011/0104/comm/dobransky_coming.html]
|
basis for transforming the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) into what many people had always hoped that it would become Until now, the OECD’s limited powers have been sole extensions of many state governments. The OECD can be more than a central coordination point and data distribution center. it can become the primary political decision maker, holder of the purse and implementer of all international foreign aid All members can support and follow it in making foreign aid and economic development a top global priority.
|
CP would Reform the OECD and solve the case
| 680 | 43 | 551 | 108 | 9 | 87 | 0.083333 | 0.805556 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,517 |
The opposition to this proposal is that it will cause the U.S. to lose complete control over a major foreign policy instrument, let alone American taxpayers’ money. There will be a major loss of U.S. expertise and advice to political leaders. It may lead to aid going to countries hostile to the U.S. And, it may cause major problems in training and recruiting sufficient numbers of foreign aid personnel, since there will be a massive complexity of operations. What happens in terms of foreign crises and wars? Will this lead to constant breakdowns, divisions and defections among personnel? What will be the costs? Moreover, what should the decision making structure be like? Who should make the final decisions? How? Will the largest donors have the most influence? Furthermore, who will make up this international organization? How will employment and recruitment and training take place? Should there be a national quota system? What about language differences? In the end, there are just too many complications to one central international organization carrying out major foreign aid operations. In the sovereign state system a global foreign aid regime that reigns supreme over national foreign aid institutions may not be able to exist successfully and operate properly for the long term
|
Dobransky, ’11 [March 2011, Steve Dobransky is an Adjunct Professor at Cleveland State University. He is completing his Ph.D. studies at Kent State University, majoring in International Relations and Justice Studies. He has an M.A. from Ohio University and a B.A. from Cleveland State University, “The Coming Crisis in US Foreign Aid: Policy Options for the 21st Century”, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2011/0104/comm/dobransky_coming.html]
|
it will cause the U.S. to lose complete control over a major foreign policy instrument, let alone American taxpayers’ money There will be a major loss of U.S. expertise and advice to political leaders aid going to countries hostile to the U.S. And, it may cause major problems in training and recruiting What happens in terms of foreign crises and wars? Will this lead to constant breakdowns, divisions and defections among personnel? What will be the costs? Moreover, what should the decision making structure be like? Who should make the final decisions? How? Will the largest donors have the most influence? Furthermore, who will make up this international organization? How will employment and recruitment and training take place? Should there be a national quota system? What about language differences? In the end, there are just too many complications to one central international organization carrying out major foreign aid operations. global foreign aid regime that reigns supreme over national foreign aid institutions may not be able to exist successfully and operate properly for the long term
|
CP can’t Solve- too many problems
| 1,295 | 33 | 1,105 | 207 | 6 | 175 | 0.028986 | 0.845411 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,518 |
CASHEW nuts still haunt the backers of conditional-aid schemes, which dole out money to poor countries if they meet set criteria. In 1995 the World Bank promised loans to Mozambique if it cut its high export tariff on raw nuts, in an effort to open its economy. Soon the country’s once-thriving nut-processing industry was in the doldrums. More than 10,000 workers were out of a job. Such slips have given conditional aid a bad reputation. But a recent report by William & Mary, a university in Virginia, suggests that one idea is working well: the “compacts” of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). Set up by the American government in 2004, the MCC dispenses aid on merit. To qualify for grants, countries must be poor, not too corrupt and meet criteria in 20 areas, including better immunisation and land rights. So far, 25 countries have received more than $9 billion between them. The accepted view is that poor countries would prefer to receive cash with no strings attached. Yet the report’s survey of more than 600 poor-country officials and do-gooders suggests otherwise. Bradley Parks, author of the report and co-director of AidData, which keeps a big database on the impact of aid, finds that they actually want more conditionality, not less, and that incentives encourage governments to reform. Under a tenth of respondents felt that performance-based aid limited their country’s autonomy.Most of Africa is no longer ruled by “a bunch of dictators” with dubious economic policies but by civilian leaders building up democracies, explains Steven Radelet, an economist who designed the first set of MCC indicators. They are trying to implement reforms—which is precisely what MCC cash rewards. “Threshold countries” (those nearing grant status) which do poorly on measures that are easy to boost—such as business friendliness and primary education—are the most likely to respond to incentives, Mr Parks finds. The agency encourages these good performers with small down-payments and monitors how they fare. Liberia, ruined by a 14-year civil war, has done particularly well under the scheme. In 2006 President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf introduced free, compulsory primary-school education. But in 2010 the country’s scorecard showed it was failing in three areas, including girls’ school enrolment. An initial $15m from the MCC allowed it to improve quickly. In December 2012 the country was declared eligible for a grant that may be around $300m (countries suggest the sum that best matches their proposal). Among other projects, the money paid for girls to attend formal schools (many go to traditional Sande bush schools, where initiations involve female genital cutting; Ms Sirleaf has pledged to shut them down). More than 2,700 girls have received free uniforms, books and writing materials since 2010, reports Lorpu Mannah, director of the government’s girls’ education division. Building more girls’ toilets has helped, too. Some aid experts have doubts. Mr Radelet, who is a former adviser to Liberia’s government, argues that the MCC rewards reforms in countries, like Liberia, that would carry them out anyway. Those “falling off the edge” need a lifeline, too, says Clare Lockhart, founder of the Institute for State Effectiveness, a think-tank that focuses on nation-building.
|
The Economist, ’13 [3/2/13, The Economist is an Authoritative weekly newspaper focusing on international politics and business news and opinion, “Carrots all round”, http://www.economist.com/news/international/21572754-controversial-approach-helping-poor-countries-seems-work-after-all-carrots-all]
|
the backers of conditional-aid schemes, which dole out money to poor countries if they meet set criteria. slips have given conditional aid a bad reputation MCC dispenses aid on merit. To qualify for grants, countries must be poor, not too corrupt and meet criteria in 20 areas poor countries actually want more conditionality, not less, and that incentives encourage governments to reform. Most of Africa is no longer ruled by “a bunch of dictators” with dubious economic policies but by civilian leaders building up democracies, explains Steven Radelet, an economist They are trying to implement reforms—which is precisely what MCC cash rewards. Some aid experts have doubts. Mr Radelet, who is a former adviser to Liberia’s government, argues that the MCC rewards reforms in countries, that would carry them out anyway
|
Aid should be conditioned- promotes domestic reforms
| 3,303 | 52 | 820 | 521 | 7 | 131 | 0.013436 | 0.25144 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,519 |
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., was disappointed when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton waived the conditions he had put on the $1.3 billion package of military aid to Egypt. Cairo had released the American pro-democracy workers it detained for weeks, but the military council’s reluctance to transfer power and its continued crackdown on civil society did not bode well for the transition to democracy. The chairman of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Subcommittee said that Clinton’s March decision to allow aid to flow despite unfulfilled conditions requiring respect for human rights and democratic freedoms sent a “contradictory message” to Egypt. Leahy tightened the conditions in next year’s appropriations bill. As the Arab Spring upended long-held assumptions about the Middle East, Congress has been trying to influence U.S. foreign policy by layering new conditions on traditional aid packages. Does it work? Both the Obama administration and Congress had the same general objective in Egypt: Let the democratic transition proceed smoothly, and give U.S. aid to support that goal. But new terms on the virtually sacrosanct aid package sparked a public discussion about the future of the broader assistance relationship when Egypt cracked down on prominent Washington-based pro-democracy organizations. Having aid on the table was successful, in that Egypt finally did allow the American NGO workers to leave. It was arguably unsuccessful when Cairo continued its broader crackdown on civil society, dissolved parliament, and stripped the civilian presidency of many powers after it understood the threat to cut off aid was hollow. The U.S. lost much of its leverage with the Egyptian military, and it lost credibility with Egyptian activists looking to Washington for support. Conditionality “is a gun with one bullet in it,” said Tamara Wittes, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. The ideal scenario is that the conditions serve as effective leverage, and the government in question meets the conditions. “If that doesn’t happen, at a certain point, the administration has to bite the bullet and impose the cutoff or waive the conditions. In either case, the leverage is gone, because the threat is the effective leverage.” With even tougher conditions looking likely this year, the U.S. may be in a similarly tough spot with Egypt. Making the military council believe that Washington will actually follow through on its threats will be much more difficult. The conditions are likely to become a test in other places, too. The bill passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee stipulates that Bahrain, where the Sunni regime has cracked down on protests led by the Shiite majority, cannot receive any funds next year for items that could be used for crowd-control purposes until Clinton declares it has met certain conditions. In April, the Obama administration overruled a key House lawmaker’s hold on Palestinian aid amid concerns about a bid for membership at the United Nations absent a peace agreement with Israel. The House Appropriations Committee now says that Palestinians will lose scheduled economic-support funds if they obtain membership at any other U.N. agency. And just days after Clinton pledged to continue economic assistance to Afghanistan, lawmakers called on the administration to ensure that future aid is contingent on Kabul undertaking successful reforms. “You will tend to see Congress layering more conditions on how money can be spent when they have concerns about administration strategy,” Wittes noted. Foreign aid in general is less popular with the American public in a tough budget environment. “So when times are tight like they are now, it’s not surprising you would see increased scrutiny of foreign aid by members of Congress and increased conditionality.” Congressional conditions can be designed to pressure the administration into enacting what lawmakers see as the right policies—or even give the executive branch an opportunity to invoke the conditions in a type of “good cop/bad cop” routine. They are also meant to inflict some discomfort if the executive branch decides to sidestep them by using the national-security waiver, said former Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., who chaired the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee. “Conditionality should be used sparingly by Congress, but it’s certainly a legitimate tool,” Kolbe said. But “we have to recognize that too often the [foreign-aid] money does not achieve the results we want,” Leahy told the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition last week. “We often do not hold foreign governments accountable when they fail to perform.” The Obama administration is now pushing a $770 billion Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund to respond to countries’ needs and to encourage reform. The Senate committee liked the idea and gave it $1 billion; the House gave it zero. Some members, such as Foreign Operations Subcommittee Chairwoman Kay Granger, R-Texas, called it a “slush fund” that could skirt congressional oversight. U.S. funds can create an undue sense of expectations or even entitlement within governments, Wittes said, and rather than using foreign aid as a stick to coerce behavior, the incentive fund is meant to communicate “there is a pot of money out there; the more you do, the more opportunity [to access it]…. It’s not a one-shot deal.”
|
Sorcher, ’13 [5/29/13, Sara Sorcher is a national security staff writer for National Journal covering the business of war, “Attaching Strings to Foreign Aid Often Proves Ineffective”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/attaching-strings-to-foreign-aid-often-proves-ineffective-20120722]
|
Sen. Patrick Leahy as disappointed when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton waived the conditions he had put on the $1.3 billion package of military aid to Eg Clinton’s March decision to allow aid to flow despite unfulfilled conditions requiring respect for human rights and democratic freedoms sent a “contradictory message” to Egypt Congress has been trying to influence U.S. foreign policy by layering new conditions on traditional aid packages. Does it work? But new terms on the virtually sacrosanct aid package sparked a public discussion about the future of the broader assistance relationsh Having aid on the table was successful, in that Egypt finally did allow the American NGO workers to leave. It was arguably unsuccessful when Cairo continued its broader crackdown on civil society, dissolved parliament, and stripped the civilian presidency of many powers after it understood the threat to cut off aid was hollow Conditionality “is a gun with one bullet in it,” said Tamara Wittes The ideal scenario is that the conditions serve as effective leverage, and the government in question meets the conditions. “If that doesn’t happen, at a certain point, the administration has to bite the bullet and impose the cutoff or waive the conditions. In either case, the leverage is gone, because the threat is the effective leverage.” With even tougher conditions looking likely this year, the U.S. may be in a similarly tough spot with Egypt The conditions are likely to become a test in other places, too In April, the Obama administration overruled a key House lawmaker’s hold on Palestinian aid amid concerns about a bid for membership at the United Nations absent a peace agreement with Israel. You will tend to see Congress layering more conditions on how money can be spent when they have concerns about administration strategy Congressional conditions can be designed to pressure the administration into enacting what lawmakers see as the right policies we have to recognize that too often the [foreign-aid] money does not achieve the results we want We often do not hold foreign governments accountable when they fail to perform.” U.S. funds can create an undue sense of expectations or even entitlement within governments rather than using foreign aid as a stick to coerce behavior, the incentive fund is meant to communicate
|
Conditional Aid never works
| 5,442 | 27 | 2,344 | 850 | 4 | 379 | 0.004706 | 0.445882 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,520 |
It seems to me that there is an even better reason not to be despondent, namely that foreign aid is a sideshow. As I have already noted, recent decades have been a spectacular period for economic and social development in most of the world. The financial crisis has slowed things down, and has given a new voice to bad ideas, but it is unlikely to reverse the basic trends. The reason for the extraordinary economic and social progress is simple: the world has increasingly embraced capitalism. The name of the game has been better policy, not foreign aid. More secure property rights, freer trade, lower taxes, better—if still far from perfect—government accountability, and more prudent public finance have all contributed to economic growth. Today, the world is a radically more pro-market place than it was 30 years ago. There is reason for continued optimism. The many rumblings from the left, and a few setbacks in places like Argentina and Venezuela notwithstanding, the evidence seems to indicate that this embrace of capitalism is durable. The crisis is a setback, but not a reversal. And if developing countries continue to embrace market policies and institutions, then growth is likely to continue as well. The intellectual consensus around pro-market policies is far more important than the billions of dollars of foreign aid. Indeed, let me end this article with a conjecture. The number of people living in absolute poverty has been shrinking rapidly, largely due to the incorporation of developing countries into the world’s economy. Since 1970, the number of people living on less than $1 a day has shrunk from 26 percent to 18 percent of the world’s population (which grew enormously), thanks largely to market policies and rapid growth in Asia (see Shleifer 2009). The percentage is continuing to fall rapidly as more countries join the global economy. As long as globalization continues, poverty will indeed be reduced substantially over the next decade or two.
|
Shleifer, ’10 [November 2010, Andrei Shleifer is a Russian American economist. He served as project director of the Harvard Institute for International Development's Russian aid project from its inauguration in 1992 until it was shut down in 1997, “Peter Bauer and the Failure of Foreign Aid”, http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2010/11/cj29n3-1.pdf]
|
The reason for the extraordinary economic and social progress is simple: the world has increasingly embraced capitalism. . More secure property rights, freer trade, lower taxes, better—if still far from perfect—government accountability, and more prudent public finance have all contributed to economic growth. Today, the world is a radically more pro-market place than it was 30 years ago the evidence seems to indicate that this embrace of capitalism is durable The crisis is a setback, but not a reversal. And if developing countries continue to embrace market policies and institutions, then growth is likely to continue as well The number of people living in absolute poverty has been shrinking rapidly, largely due to the incorporation of developing countries into the world’s economy the number of people living on less than $1 a day has shrunk from 26 percent to 18 percent of the world’s population The percentage is continuing to fall rapidly as more countries join the global economy As long as globalization continues, poverty will indeed be reduced substantially over the next decade or two.
|
Capitalism is inevitable- globalization is improving the squo
| 1,981 | 61 | 1,104 | 324 | 8 | 176 | 0.024691 | 0.54321 |
Foreign Aid Toolbox - Northwestern 2013 6WeekJuniors.html5
|
Northwestern (NHSI)
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,521 |
In their joint fight against drug traffickers, the United States and Mexico have forged an unusually close relationship in recent years, with the Americans regularly conducting polygraph tests on elite Mexican security officials to root out anyone who had been corrupted.
|
Cave et al 13 (Randal C. Archibold and Damien Cave reported from Mexico City, and Ginger Thompson from New York, 4/30/13, “Mexico’s Curbs on U.S. Role in Drug Fight Spark Friction,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/americas/friction-between-us-and-mexico-threatens-efforts-on-drugs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)//DR. H
|
In their joint fight against drug traffickers, the United States and Mexico have forged an unusually close relationship in recent years
|
1. Mexico says no – not a fan of US drug involvement.
| 271 | 53 | 135 | 41 | 12 | 21 | 0.292683 | 0.512195 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,522 |
When U.S. President Barack Obama travels to Mexico on May 2, he will arrive amid a period of sweeping transformation in the country. Embroiled in myriad political battles and seeking to implement an extensive slate of national reforms, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's administration has been focused almost solely on internal affairs. Meanwhile, after years of delay, the U.S. Congress has been debating gun control and immigration reform -- two issues of serious interest to the Mexican government.
|
Stratfor 5/2 (geopolitical intelligence firm that provides strategic analysis and forecasting to individuals and organizations, 5/2/13, “Evolving U.S.-Mexico Relations and Obama's Visit,” http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/evolving-us-mexico-relations-and-obamas-visit)//DR. H
|
When Obama travels to Mexico he will arrive amid a period of sweeping transformation in the country. Nieto's been focused almost solely on internal affairs. after years of delay, the U.S. Congress has been debating gun control and immigration reform -- two issues of serious interest to the Mexican government.
|
2. Cooperation now solves.
| 506 | 26 | 310 | 78 | 4 | 50 | 0.051282 | 0.641026 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,523 |
In addition to these concerns, the consistently ineffective track record of frontal-combat approaches to reducing drug trafficking leave little doubt that supporting such an approach now will not end the drug trade, despite any short-term increases in the number of arrests or amount of drugs seized. Other largescale security operations to fight drug traffickers at various points over the past few Mexican administrations have resulted in the arrests of high-profile drug kingpins or shifted drug trafficking routes from one place to another. They have not shown signs, however, of sustainable progress in reducing the drug trade as a whole.25
|
Brewer 08 (Stephanie Erin, 6/30/08, International Legal Officer at the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center in Mexico City, “Rethinking the Mérida Initiative: Why the U.S. Must Change Course in its Approach to Mexico’s Drug War,” American University Washington College of Law, pdf)//DR. H
|
the consistently ineffective track record of frontal-combat approaches to reducing drug trafficking leave little doubt that supporting such an approach now will not end the drug trade Other largescale security operations to fight drug traffickers at various points over the past few Mexican administrations have resulted in arrests They have not shown signs, however, of sustainable progress in reducing the drug trade as a whole.
|
3. Security approaches fail – empirics and data.
| 645 | 48 | 430 | 99 | 8 | 65 | 0.080808 | 0.656566 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,524 |
MEXICO CITY — For the past seven years, Mexico and the United States have put aside their tension-filled history on security matters to forge an unparalleled alliance against Mexico’s drug cartels, one based on sharing sensitive intelligence, U.S. training and joint operational planning. But now, much of that hard-earned cooperation may be in jeopardy. The December inauguration of President Enrique Peña Nieto brought the nationalistic Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) back to power after 13 years, and with it a whiff of resentment over the deep U.S. involvement in Mexico’s fight against narco-traffickers. The new administration has shifted priorities away from the U.S.-backed strategy of arresting kingpins, which sparked an unprecedented level of violence among the cartels, and toward an emphasis on prevention and keeping Mexico’s streets safe and calm, Mexican authorities said. Some U.S. officials fear the coming of an unofficial truce with cartel leaders. The Mexicans see it otherwise. “The objective of fighting organized crime is not in conflict with achieving peace,” said Eduardo Medina Mora, Mexico’s ambassador to the United States. Interviews with more than four dozen current and former U.S. and Mexican diplomats, law enforcement agents, military officers and intelligence officials — most of whom agreed to speak about sensitive matters only on condition of anonymity — paint the most detailed public portrait to date of how the two countries grew so close after so many years of distance and distrust, and what is at stake should the alliance be scaled back. U.S. officials got their first inkling that the relationship might change just two weeks after Peña Nieto assumed office Dec. 1. At the U.S. ambassador’s request, the new president sent his top five security officials to an unusual meeting at the U.S. Embassy here. In a crowded conference room, the new attorney general and interior minister sat in silence, not knowing what to expect, next to the new leaders of the army, navy and Mexican intelligence agency. In front of them at the Dec. 15 meeting were representatives from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the CIA, the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and other U.S. agencies tasked with helping Mexico destroy the drug cartels that had besieged the country for the past decade. The Mexicans remained stone-faced as they learned for the first time just how entwined the two countries had become during the battle against narco-traffickers, and how, in the process, the United States had been given near-complete entree to Mexico’s territory and the secrets of its citizens, according to several U.S. officials familiar with the meeting.
|
Priest, 13 Dana, national security reporter for the Washington Post whose work focuses on intelligence and counterterrorism, Washington Post, 4/27, http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-role-at-a-crossroads-in-mexicos-intelligence-war-on-the-cartels/2013/04/27/b578b3ba-a3b3-11e2-be47-b44febada3a8_print.html, “U.S. role at a crossroads in Mexico’s intelligence war on the cartels,” ADM
|
Mexico and the United States have put aside their history on security matters to forge an unparalleled alliance against drug cartels much of that hard-earned cooperation may be in jeopardy Nieto brought a whiff of resentment over the deep U.S. involvement in Mexico’s fight against narco-traffickers The new administration has shifted priorities away from the U.S.-backed strategy and toward an emphasis on prevention and keeping Mexico’s streets safe U.S. officials got their first inkling that the relationship might change after Nieto assumed office the new president sent his top five security officials to an unusual meeting Mexicans learned just how entwined the two countries had become and how the United States had been given near-complete entree to Mexico’s territory
|
nieto administration is strictly opposed to us intervention in the mexican drug war
| 2,723 | 84 | 777 | 428 | 13 | 119 | 0.030374 | 0.278037 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,525 |
But behind the scenes, the Americans are coming to grips with a scaling back of the level of coordination that existed during the presidency of Felipe Calderón, which included American drones flying deep into Mexican territory and American spy technology helping to track high-level suspects.
|
Cave et al 13 (Randal C. Archibold and Damien Cave reported from Mexico City, and Ginger Thompson from New York, 4/30/13, “Mexico’s Curbs on U.S. Role in Drug Fight Spark Friction,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/americas/friction-between-us-and-mexico-threatens-efforts-on-drugs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)//DR. H
|
But behind the scenes, the Americans are coming to grips with a scaling back of the level of coordination that existed during the presidency of Calderón, which included American drones flying into Mexican territory and American spy tech helping to track high-level suspects.
|
Interior Minister claims prove
| 292 | 30 | 274 | 45 | 4 | 43 | 0.088889 | 0.955556 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,526 |
But there is growing anxiety that the violence has not diminished, with daily killings hovering around 50 since last fall. Some American officials say they are increasingly worried by public and private signs suggesting that Mr. Peña Nieto, the young face of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which ran Mexico for 71 years, is putting the government’s crime-fighting image above its actions.
|
Cave et al 13 (Randal C. Archibold and Damien Cave reported from Mexico City, and Ginger Thompson from New York, 4/30/13, “Mexico’s Curbs on U.S. Role in Drug Fight Spark Friction,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/americas/friction-between-us-and-mexico-threatens-efforts-on-drugs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)//DR. H
|
American officials say they are increasingly worried by public and private signs suggesting that Nieto is putting the government’s crime-fighting image above its actions.
|
Mexico wants a unilateral perception of resolving drug wars.
| 396 | 60 | 170 | 61 | 9 | 24 | 0.147541 | 0.393443 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,527 |
Sharing a 2,000-mile border and extensive interconnections through the Gulf of Mexico, the United States and Mexico are so intricately linked together in an enormous multiplicity of ways that President George W. Bush and other U.S. officials have stated that no country is more important to the United States than Mexico. At the same time, Mexican President Vicente Fox (2000-2006), the first president to be elected from an opposition party in 71 years, has sought to strengthen the relationship with the United States through what some have called a “grand bargain.” Under this proposed bargain, the United States would regularize the status of undocumented Mexican workers in the United States and economically assist the less developed partner in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), while Mexico would be more cooperative in efforts to control the illegal traffic of drugs, people, and goods into the United States. The southern neighbor is linked with the United States through trade and investment, migration and tourism, environment and health concerns, and family and cultural relationships. It is the second most important trading partner of the United States, and this trade is critical to many U.S. industries and border communities. It is a major source of undocumented migrants and illicit drugs and a possible avenue for the entry of terrorists into the United States. As a result, cooperation with Mexico is essential to deal effectively with migration, drug trafficking, and border, terrorism, health, environment, and energy issues. The United States and Mexico have developed a wide variety of mechanisms for consultation and cooperation on the range of issues in which the countries interact. These include (1) periodical presidential meetings; (2) annual cabinet-level Binational Commission meetings with 10 Working Groups on major issues; (3) annual meetings of congressional delegations in the Mexico-United States Interparliamentary Group Conferences; (4) NAFTA-related trilateral trade meetings under various groups; (5) regular meetings of the Attorneys General and the Senior Law Enforcement Plenary to deal with law enforcement and counter-narcotics matters; (6) a wide variety of bilateral border area cooperation meetings dealing with environment, health, transportation, and border crossing issues; and (7) trilateral meetings under the “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America” launched in Waco, Texas, in March 2005.
|
Storrs, 06 K. Larry, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, Congressional Research Service, http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33244_20060118.pdf, “Mexico’s Importance and Multiple Relationships with the United States” | ADM
|
the United States and Mexico are so intricately linked together that officials have stated that no country is more important to the United States than Mexico Fox sought to strengthen the relationship with the United States through a “grand bargain.” the United States would regularize the status of undocumented Mexican workers in the United States and economically assist the less developed partner in NAFTA The southern neighbor is linked with the United States through trade and investment, migration and tourism, environment and health concerns, and family and cultural relationships It is the second most important trading partner of the United States The United States and Mexico have developed a wide variety of mechanisms for consultation and cooperation These include presidential meetings Commission meetings congressional delegations NAFTA-related trilateral trade meetings regular meetings of the Attorneys General a wide variety of bilateral border area cooperation meetings and trilateral meetings
|
The US and Mexico are intricately linked together – trade, investment, immigration, environmental cooperation, and cultural relationships
| 2,480 | 137 | 1,011 | 370 | 17 | 147 | 0.045946 | 0.397297 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,528 |
The Mexico-U.S. relationship won't substantially change; there are too many ongoing issues to expect any major shift in what has become a very close and cooperative bilateral partnership in economic, security and social aspects. There will be a change of emphasis from the Mexican side as far as the security relationship goes, with Peña Nieto's declared intention to focus much more on the economy and public safety. He has already moved away from the constant statements made by his predecessor extolling the number of criminals apprehended and 'successes' in the fight against organized crime. The change of message comes as a relief to many Mexicans tired of hearing about violence and crime on a daily basis.
|
Rozental 13 (Andrés Rozental, former deputy foreign minister of Mexico, works primarily on global governance issues, U.S.-Mexico relations and international migration, served for many years in Mexico’s diplomatic corps, 2/1/13, “Have Prospects for U.S.-Mexican Relations Improved?” http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/02/01-us-mexico-rozental)//DR. H
|
The Mexico-U.S. relationship won't substantially change; there are too many ongoing issues to expect any major shift There will be a change of emphasis from the Mexican side as far as the security relationship goes, with Nieto's declared intention to focus much more on the economy and public safety.
|
Uniq o/w link – too many issues to change relations.
| 713 | 52 | 300 | 116 | 10 | 49 | 0.086207 | 0.422414 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,529 |
Contrary to conventional analyses that focus almost exclusively on narcocartels, this article has argued that US policy towards Mexico is shaped by¶ political economic imperatives, rather than by concerns for drug control. In¶ fact, drug wars have served to justify the expansion of US hegemony, which¶ itself has increased the size of the drug industry. Further, mainstream¶ analysts’ favoured solutions—interdiction and seizure of drug shipments,¶ arrests of drug kingpins, military and police operations—miss the point in at¶ least three ways. First, in general, since US hegemony over the country has¶ worsened drug problems, more equitable bilateral relations should therefore be favoured. For example, instead of promoting neoliberal policies that result¶ in unemployment and harsh living conditions south of the border and thus¶ provide an abundant pool of labour for drug cartels, policies that support¶ growth and development would make a positive difference. Better labour¶ standards, working conditions and environmental regulations would be a¶ good start.¶ Second, Washington should stop directly supporting some important drug¶ actors in Mexico, whether these be the military, police or drug kingpin as¶ paid informants (if the latter claim is indeed true).¶ Third, in addition to stopping the flow of firearms south, the findings of¶ drug policy research should be applied. Whereas mainstream authors call¶ for overseas drug control operations, interdiction and enforcement to¶ tackle the narcotics problem, research has consistently found that such¶ methods are ineffective, while the most effective methods to reduce drug¶ consumption are treatment of addicts and prevention. Indeed, a widely¶ cited RAND report calculated that ‘treatment’ was the most effective¶ method for reducing cocaine consumption in the US and that targeting¶ ‘source countries’ like Mexico was 23 times less cost-effective, ‘interdiction’¶ 11 times less cost-effective, and ‘domestic enforcement’ seven times less¶ cost-effective.54 The Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, conceived by ex-presidents Cardoso of Brazil, Gaviria of Colombia¶ and Zedillo of Mexico, agrees and stated that: ‘The long-term solution for¶ the drug problem is to reduce drastically the demand for drugs in the¶ main consumer countries’, the US and Europe.55 But the US has rejected¶ the consensus on drugs policy, allocating 64 per cent of the drug control¶ budget to interdiction and to arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating drug¶ offenders, including the arrest of about 750 000 each year for possession¶ of small amounts of marijuana. Only 36 per cent of the budget is reserved¶ for treatment and other demand reduction activities. Nonetheless, the US¶ has one of the highest levels of drug use in the world, while many¶ European countries adopting softer approaches have significantly lower¶ usage levels. In short, the solutions are known, but have not been fully¶ implemented.
|
Mercille 2011 (Julien Mercille is a lecturer in the School of Geography, Planning and¶ Environmental Policy, University College Dublin. He was previously at the¶ University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA). His forthcoming book, Harvest¶ of Destruction: US Responsibility in the Afghan Drug Trade, will be published¶ by Pluto Press in 2012, “Violent Narco-Cartels or US¶ Hegemony? The political economy¶ of the ‘war on drugs’ in Mexico”, http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/carc/reading%20group/Mercille%20-%20Narco%20Cartels%20or%20US%20Hegemony_Oct%202011.pdf)
|
US policy towards Mexico is shaped by political economic imperatives, rather than by concerns for drug control drug wars have served to justify the expansion of US hegemony favoured solutions miss the point in three ways instead of promoting policies that result in harsh living conditions south of the border policies that support Better labour standards conditions and regulations would be a good start Washington should stop directly supporting important drug actors whether these be military police or drug kingpin as paid informants Whereas mainstream authors call for overseas drug control operations, interdiction and enforcement research has consistently found that such methods are ineffective the most effective methods to reduce consumption are treatment of addicts and prevention The long-term solution for the drug problem is to reduce drastically the demand for drugs the US has rejected the consensus the US has one of the highest levels of drug use in the world, while many countries adopting softer approaches have significantly lower usage levels
|
Anti-drug operations fail – aggravates the drug war, fails to resolve poor conditions, and can’t .overcome demand
| 2,954 | 113 | 1,061 | 440 | 17 | 163 | 0.038636 | 0.370455 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,530 |
Aside from the political struggles, the Mexican government still faces very real challenges on the streets as it attempts to quell violence, reassert control over lawless areas and gain the trust of the public. The holistic plan laid out by the Pena Nieto administration sounds good on paper, but it will still require a great deal of leadership by Pena Nieto and his team to bring Mexico through the challenges it faces. They will obviously need to cooperate with the United States to succeed, but it has become clear that this cooperation will need to be on Mexico’s terms and in accordance with the administration’s new, holistic approach.
|
Stewart, 13 Vice president of analysis at Stratfor, a geopolitical intelligence firm that provides strategic analysis and forecasting to individuals and organizations around the world, 5/16, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/05/16/u-s-mexico-cooperation-against-cartels-remains-strong/, “U.S.-Mexico Cooperation Against Cartels Remains Strong” | ADM
|
the Mexican government still faces very real challenges The holistic plan laid out by Nieto sounds good but it will still require a great deal of leadership by Nieto and his team They will need to cooperate with the United States but it has become clear that this cooperation will need to be on Mexico’s terms
|
US policy isn’t key – Nieto’s domestic reform plans drive anti-drug effort.
| 642 | 75 | 309 | 108 | 12 | 56 | 0.111111 | 0.518519 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,531 |
The United States is, by far, Mexico’s leading partner in merchandise trade, while Mexico is the United States’ third-largest trade partner after China and Canada. Mexico ranks second among U.S. export markets after Canada, and is the third-leading supplier of U.S. imports. U.S. trade with Mexico increased rapidly since NAFTA entered into force in January 1994. U.S. exports to Mexico increased from $54.8 billion in 1994 to $174.4 billion in 2011, an increase of 218%. Imports from Mexico increased from $51.6 billion in 1994 to $285.4 billion in 2011, an increase of 453% (see Figure 1). In services, the United States had a surplus of $2.2 billion in 2010 (the most recent available data). U.S. exports in services to Mexico totaled $3.8 billion in 2010, while U.S. imports totaled $1.6 billion.5 Total services trade with Mexico is approximately equal to 1% of total merchandise trade with Mexico. The trade balance with Mexico went from a surplus of $3.1 billion in 1994 to a deficit of $99.5 billion in 2011. In 2011, 13% of total U.S. merchandise exports were destined for Mexico and 12% of U.S. merchandise imports came from Mexico. After the significant decrease in trade in 2009 that resulted from the global economic downturn, U.S.-Mexico trade increased considerably in 2010 and 2011. Part of the increase in trade with Mexico may be attributed to the increasing trade in energy. Crude petroleum oil accounts for 15% of total U.S. imports from Mexico. The value of U.S. crude oil imports from Mexico increased over 500% since the 1990s, increasing from $6.3 billion in 1996 to $39.8 billion in 2011. Mexico is the leading destination for U.S. exports in refined oil. The value of U.S. refined oil exports to Mexico increased by $18.4 billion from 1996 to 2011, from $1.0 billion to $19.4 billion, approximately an 1800% increase.6 As stated previously, Mexico relies heavily on the United States as an export market; this reliance has diminished very slightly over the years. The percentage of Mexico’s total exports going to the United States decreased from 83% in 1996 to 79% in 2011. Mexico’s share of the U.S. market has lost ground since 2002. In 2003, China surpassed Mexico as the second-leading supplier of U.S. imports. The United States is losing market share of Mexico’s import market. Between 1996 and 2011, the U.S. share of Mexico’s total imports decreased from 75% to 50%. China is Mexico’s second-leading source of imports.
|
Villareal, 12 M. Angeles, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, Congressional Research Service, 8/9, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf, “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications” | ADM
|
The United States is Mexico’s leading partner while Mexico is the United States’ third-largest trade partner Mexico ranks second among U.S. export markets and is the third-leading supplier of U.S. imports trade with Mexico increased rapidly since NAFTA The trade balance with Mexico went from a surplus to a deficit 13% of total U.S. merchandise exports were destined for Mexico and 12% of U.S. merchandise imports came from Mexico U.S.-Mexico trade increased considerably Part of the increase in trade with Mexico may be attributed to the increasing trade in energy oil accounts for 15% of total U.S. imports from Mexico The value of U.S. refined oil exports to Mexico increased Mexico relies heavily on the United States as an export market
|
US-Mexico trade is already huge and trends flow neg
| 2,453 | 51 | 742 | 406 | 9 | 121 | 0.022167 | 0.29803 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,532 |
Foreign direct investment (FDI) has been an integral part of the economic relationship between the United States and Mexico since NAFTA implementation. FDI consists of investments in real estate, manufacturing plants, and retail facilities, in which the foreign investor owns 10% or more of the entity. The United States is the largest source of FDI in Mexico. The stock of U.S. FDI increased from $17.0 billion in 1994 to $91.4 billion in 2011, a 440% increase (see Table 4). Mexican FDI in the United States is much lower than U.S. investment in Mexico, with levels of Mexican FDI fluctuating over the last 10 years. In 2010, Mexican FDI in the United States totaled $12.6 billion (see Table 4). The sharp rise in U.S. investment in Mexico since NAFTA is also a result of the liberalization of Mexico’s restrictions on foreign investment in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. Prior to the mid-1980s, Mexico had a very protective policy that restricted foreign investment and controlled the exchange rate to encourage domestic growth, affecting the entire industrial sector. Mexico’s trade liberalization measures and economic reform in the late 1980s represented a sharp shift in policy and helped bring in a steady increase of FDI flows into Mexico. NAFTA provisions on foreign investment helped to lock in the reforms and increase investor confidence. Under NAFTA, Mexico gave U.S. and Canadian investors nondiscriminatory treatment of their investments as well as investor protection. NAFTA may have encouraged U.S. FDI in Mexico by increasing investor confidence, but much of the growth may have occurred anyway because Mexico likely would have continued to liberalize its foreign investment laws with or without the agreement. Nearly half of total FDI investment in Mexico is in the manufacturing industry, of which the maquiladora industry forms a major part. (See “Mexico’s Export-Oriented Assembly Plants” below.) In Mexico, the industry has helped attract investment from countries such as the United States that have a relatively large amount of capital. For the United States, the industry is important because U.S. companies are able to locate their labor-intensive operations in Mexico and lower their labor costs in the overall production process.
|
Villareal, 12 M. Angeles, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, Congressional Research Service, 8/9, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf, “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications” | ADM
|
FDI has been an integral part of the economic relationship between the United States and Mexico FDI consists of investments in real estate manufacturing and retail The United States is the largest source of FDI in Mexico FDI increased The sharp rise is the liberalization of Mexico’s restrictions on foreign investment Mexico had a very protective policy that restricted foreign investment and controlled the exchange rate Mexico’s trade liberalization measures and economic reform represented a sharp shift in policy and helped bring in a steady increase of FDI flows NAFTA may have encouraged U.S. FDI in Mexico by increasing investor confidence, but much of the growth may have occurred anyway Nearly half of total FDI investment in Mexico is in the manufacturing industry the industry has helped attract investment from countries such as the United States that have a relatively large amount of capital
|
FDI is an integral part of the us-mexico economic relationship – trends go neg
| 2,264 | 78 | 906 | 358 | 14 | 144 | 0.039106 | 0.402235 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,533 |
It’s unfortunate that the two presidents chose to hold their May 2-3 summit in Mexico City. Both nations and Presidents Barack Obama and Enrique Peña Nieto would have been better served by a meeting at the border—where the grim reality of neighborly relations would not be masked by the pomp and circumstance of the grand presidential residence of Los Pinos. A meeting at the customs building in Ciudad Juárez—the site of the first Mexico-U.S. presidential meeting in 1909 between Porfirio Díaz and William Taft—would have likely resulted in a more memorable and productive summit of the current heads of state, Enrique Peña Nieto and Barack Obama. As it is, this meeting will likely be soon forgotten—lost in protocol, predictable rhetoric about interdependence, and the photogenic smiles of the two presidents. A century ago the Rio Grande/Río Bravo clearly marked the divide between El Paso and Juárez, the border twins that were jointly known as El Paso del Norte—the pass to the north. Today, however, it’s unlikely that the presidential delegations and the accompanying media would now passes for a river—really just an alarmingly greenish trickle of pesticides, fertilizer runoff, and human waste. Instead of news photos from the bilateral meeting depicting two smiling presidents, we would be witnessing images of the stark divide between the two neighbors: the formidable border security infrastructure, the smog rising from the long lines of vehicles waiting to cross, the beggars and street vendors taking advantage of the stalled south-north traffic, the ravages of the drug wars, the miles of low-slung factories calledmaquiladoras, the sprawling colonias of Mexico’s expanding, but still largely poor, middle class (those families earning at least $7,500 annually), and still-poorer squatter settlements that spread out into the Chihuahuan Desert. The lead items of the Los Pinos meeting are ones that have long dominated U.S.-Mexico presidential meetings: immigration, border control, economic integration, and drug-related security. The presidents will achieve some camaraderie chatting about the domestic political obstacles that complicate their plans for national and international progress. In the pleasant, climate-controlled setting of Los Pinos, it’s unlikely that Peña Nieto and Obama will address in any depth, if at all, what will soon become the top agenda item of most binational and multilateral meetings: the scourge of climate change.
|
Barry, 13 Tom, senior policy analyst at the Center for International Policy, where he directs the TransBorder project. Barry specializes in immigration policy, homeland security, border security and the outsourcing of national security, 5/7, http://truth-out.org/news/item/16221-changing-perspectives-on-us-mexico-relations, “Changing Perspectives on US-Mexico Relations” | ADM
|
Obama and Nieto would have been better served by a meeting at the border we would be witnessing images of the stark divide between the two neighbors the formidable border security infrastructure, the smog rising and poorer settlements that spread out The lead items are immigration, border control, economic integration, and drug-related security it’s unlikely that Nieto and Obama will address climate change
|
immigration, border, economic integration, climate change, and security are alt causes
| 2,465 | 86 | 409 | 376 | 11 | 63 | 0.029255 | 0.167553 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,534 |
Obama will arrive in Mexico with good and bad news. On the positive side, he can highlight the progress his administration has made towards overhauling our immigration system. The border is more secure than ever, and the Senate has unveiled a proposal that creates new pathways for legal immigration. On the negative side, Obama bears responsibility for his failure to reform U.S. gun laws. ThinkProgress reports that the expiration of the assault weapons ban has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans in cartel violence. Even worse, America’s demand for illegal drugs fuels the growth of these cartels. However, Obama would be wise to recognize that relations with Mexico should not center on these issues alone. As president-elect, Peña Nieto wrote in The Washington Post that, “It is a mistake to limit our bilateral relationship to drugs and security concerns. Our mutual interests are too vast and complex to be restricted in this short-sighted way.” He wants a deeper relationship, one that is defined by shared economic goals. That’s the smart way forward. Since 2008, Mexico has seen steady economic growth, which has been a net benefit to the U.S. The U.S. exports more to Mexico than to China and Japan combined, and U.S./Mexico trade hit almost $500 billion in 2012. Obama should build on these ties to create greater economic integration. If he and Peña Nieto were to collaborate on ways of matching Mexico’s young labor force with American technology and training, it would be a recipe for a regional economic boom. Greater U.S. investment in Mexico will make the country safer, as the cartels generally leave multinational operations alone. Politically, Obama cannot afford to take Mexico for granted. Consider that Mexico has been fully engaged with Cuba since the revolution in 1959 (which was launched from Mexico). And although the U.S. has not recognized Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro as successor to Hugo Chavez, Mexico recognized his election on April 19. So Mexico is not an ally that automatically falls in lockstep with American interests. Perhaps with more attention from the Obama administration, Peña Nieto could be persuaded to be more supportive of U.S. policies for the region. True, there are legitimate reasons why Mexico has been viewed warily by past administrations. Mexico has historically been the largest source of our undocumented population. Border towns have long feared spillover violence from the drug cartels. But illegal immigration is at net zero, and the fears of violence on the U.S. side of the border have proved largely unfounded. Obama should take the lead in encouraging more communication and cooperation with Mexico. Already, Peña Nieto favors opening Mexico’s energy sector to private investment, and he may even allow foreign investment in its state oil company.
|
Reyes, 13 Raul, attorney and columnist in New York City, 4/29, http://nbclatino.com/2013/04/29/opinion-president-obama-has-the-chance-to-improve-usmexico-relations/, “Opinion: President Obama has the chance to improve US/Mexico relations” | ADM
|
Obama bears responsibility for his failure to reform gun laws the expiration of the assault weapons ban has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans in cartel violence America’s demand for illegal drugs fuels the growth of these cartels relations with Mexico should not center on these issues alone Obama cannot afford to take Mexico for granted Mexico has been fully engaged with Cuba although the U.S. has not recognized Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro as successor to Hugo Chavez, Mexico recognized his election Mexico is not an ally that falls in lockstep with American interests there are legitimate reasons why Mexico has been viewed warily by past administrations Mexico has historically been the largest source of our undocumented population
|
alt Causes – gun policy, drugs, Latin American foreign policy, and illegal immigration
| 2,825 | 86 | 750 | 454 | 13 | 119 | 0.028634 | 0.262115 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,535 |
The U.S. Agency for International Development plans to cut its budget for democracy programs in Cuba by 25 percent.¶ Sen. Marco Rubio on Wednesday called it "a terrible precedent, a terrible idea" and urged the agency to reconsider.¶ The planned reduction* is "way out of proportion...for a program of this small scale," said Rubio, speaking Wednesday at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in Washington, D.C. (See video).¶ Rubio blamed Secretary of State John Kerry for the cut. He did not mention Kerry by name, but recalled that Kerry, as senator and chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, once froze funding for democracy programs in Cuba.¶ Rubio said Kerry and other lawmakers "held up this program with endless questions about it."¶ Kerry now oversees both the State Department and USAID and is in a position to adjust the budget for the democracy programs. Said Rubio:¶ I don't think it's a coincidence that this was reduced. I just hope that this will be reversed. I think it's a terrible precedent. It's a terrible idea.¶ Rubio also urged that USAID's Cuba money be spent on democracy promotion, "not the creation of grassroots community organizations that specialize in, you know, better sewage treatment programs or what have you. This is about democracy."¶ Rubio is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, which heard testimony from USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah.¶ Shah told Rubio:¶ On Cuba, your point is well taken.¶ Sen. Bob Menéndez, who chairs the committee, said he didn't agree with "the totality of cuts" to USAID's budget proposed for fiscal 2014.¶ Menéndez said the agency was cutting its Cuba program at a time when arrests of dissidents and activists are rising on the island. He cited attacks on members of Ladies in White and the "assassination" of dissident leader Oswaldo Payá. He said:¶ I just don't get it.¶ Ménendez also complained that the U.S. government doesn't react until there's a major problem in a region and then "we'll spend a fortune."¶ That's what happened in Central America, the senator said.¶ It just doesn't make a lot of sense.¶ Shah replied that the agency has had to make "tough trade-offs in a budget we certainly wish was larger."¶ Ménendez interrupted Shah, telling him that he's heard the same story before from USAID. He complained that when the agency makes cuts, programs targeting Latin America and the Caribbean always suffer. The senator said:¶ I just think it's foolish at the end of the day.¶ * While watching a video of the committee hearing, I didn't hear anyone say how much money may be cut from the Cuba programs, just that a 25 percent cut was planned.¶ The State Department's Executive Budget Summary for Function 150 & Other International Programs (see document) lists $15 million for Cuba programs in fiscal 2014. That is a 25 percent drop over fiscal 2012. Perhaps that is where Rubio got the 25 percent figure.¶ Cuba program budget figures show $20 million in fiscal 2012.¶ An asterisk linked to the sequester is shown for fiscal 2013, then $15 million for fiscal 2014.¶ The State Department's fiscal 2014 budget does not list a fiscal 2013 figure for the Cuba programs. That number is evidently affected by automatic budget cuts, also known as the sequester (for more on that, see Public Law 112–175).
|
Eaton 4/25— assistant professor of communication at Flagler College (“USAID may slash Cuba program (updated)”, 2013, Tracey, http://alongthemalecon.blogspot.com/2013/04/usaid-may-slash-cuba-program.html) EL
|
he U.S. Agency for International Development plans to cut its budget for democracy programs in Cuba by 25 percent. ubio called it "a terrible precedent, a terrible idea" and urged the agency to reconsider.¶ The planned reduction* is "way out of proportion...for a program of this small scale Kerry once froze funding for democracy programs in Cuba Kerry and other lawmakers "held up this program with endless questions about it." Rubio also urged that USAID's Cuba money be spent on democracy promotion he didn't agree with "the totality of cuts" to USAID's budget proposed for fiscal 2014.¶ cutting its Cuba program at a time when arrests of dissidents and activists are rising on the island the U.S. government doesn't react until there's a major problem in a region and then "we'll spend a fortune."¶ That's what happened in Central America
|
1. Alt cause to USAID—cutting Cuba program now
| 3,294 | 46 | 843 | 551 | 8 | 140 | 0.014519 | 0.254083 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,536 |
LA PAZ (Reuters) - Bolivian President Evo Morales expelled a U.S. development agency from his country on Wednesday, marking the latest confrontation between Washington and a bloc of left-wing governments in Latin America.¶ Morales said he was kicking out the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as a "protest" after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry recently referred to Latin America as Washington's "backyard." The term evokes strong emotions in the region, which experienced several U.S.-backed coups during the Cold War.¶ Morales announced his decision at a Labor Day rally, an occasion he has used in recent years as a forum to nationalize businesses and take other steps to rouse his working-class base in South America's poorest nation.¶ "Today we're only going to nationalize ... the dignity of the Bolivian people," Morales said. "USAID is leaving Bolivia."¶ He did not say what USAID did to deserve expulsion, though Bolivian officials have previously accused the agency of destabilizing the government. In 2008, Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador for allegedly aiding the opposition.¶ Morales is a close ally of Venezuela's left-wing government, which has seen its already strained relations with the United States deteriorate further in recent weeks. The government of President Nicolas Maduro, who won a tightly contested election last month to succeed the late Hugo Chavez, on April 25 detained a U.S. citizen and accused him of destabilizing the country.¶ USAID said in a statement it has spent nearly $2 billion in Bolivia over the past 50 years on projects in education, health and food security, among other areas.¶ The U.S. government "deeply regrets" Bolivia's decision, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters.¶ "Those who will be most hurt by the Bolivian government's decision are the Bolivian citizens who have benefited from our collaborative work," he said.¶ Ventrell said Bolivia's allegations against USAID were "baseless," and said the U.S. government had not yet decided whether to take any action in response.¶ Kerry made the "backyard" comment at a Senate committee hearing on April 18.¶ When pressed by a senator about Washington's influence in Latin America, Kerry expressed regret that U.S. aid to the region is falling victim to budget cuts.¶ "I don't disagree with you about the need to change the dynamic in the Western Hemisphere," he said. "It has too often been viewed as a second thought. It shouldn't be. It's our backyard, neighborhood, as you say. I think there are relationships we could improve."
|
Reuters 5/1—“Bolivia expels U.S. aid agency after Kerry 'backyard' comment”, 2013, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-01/news/sns-rt-us-bolivia-usaidbre94013v-20130501_1_president-evo-morales-bolivian-usaid) EL
|
Morales expelled a U.S. development agency from his country on Wednesday, marking the latest confrontation between Washington and a bloc of left-wing governments in Latin America he was kicking out the USAID) as a "protest" after Kerry recently referred to Latin America as Washington's "backyard The term evokes strong emotions in the region, which experienced several U.S.-backed coups during the Cold War.¶ we're only going to nationalize ... the dignity of the Bolivian people officials have previously accused the agency of destabilizing the government. Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador for allegedly aiding the opposition.¶ Morales is a close ally of Venezuela's left-wing government it has spent nearly $2 billion in Bolivia over the past 50 years on projects in education, health and food security, among other areas.¶ Kerry expressed regret that U.S. aid to the region is falling victim to budget cuts.¶
|
2. No spillover—Latin American countries reject USAID
| 2,579 | 53 | 916 | 406 | 7 | 142 | 0.017241 | 0.349754 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,537 |
But you don't have to be a hawk to believe that, over the longer term, it's the country's hard power advantages that will ensure that America remains indispensable for the world's political and economic stability -- even as its soft power loses some of its appeal relative to that of other states.¶ The erosion of the U.S. soft power advantage has already begun. The global financial crisis has inflicted a lot of damage on the American argument that unfettered capitalism is the best model for steady economic expansion. The rise of "state capitalism," as practiced in China, Russia, the Persian Gulf states and several other places, has created an attractive alternative. Breakout growth over the past several years in several emerging market countries ensures that American brands now share shelf space around the world with products made in dozens of developing states. The icons of American popular culture, central to U.S. soft power appeal, now share stage and screen with celebrities from a growing number of other countries. The Bush administration's unpopularity in much of the world has merely added momentum to these trends.¶ America's hard power advantages have their limitations, as well, but their value is less subject to the ebbs and flows of popular opinion and cultural attraction. The United States now spends more on its military than every other nation in the world combined. For all the fear in Washington (and elsewhere) that China's military spending continues to grow and that Russian foreign policy has become more aggressive, U.S. military spending outpaces China's by almost ten to one and Russia's by about 25 to one. It will be decades before any other state can afford to challenge the balance of global military power-assuming that any becomes willing to accept the costs and risks that come with global ambitions.¶ U.S. military strength will remain useful for the next several decades -- not only for the waging of wars and not just for Americans. Governments around the world that depend on the import of oil and natural gas to fuel their economies are hard at work crafting plans for a technological transition toward a more diversified energy mix. But that's a long-term process. For the next several years, the world's oil and gas will continue to come from unstable (and potentially unstable) parts of the world -- the Middle East, the Caspian Sea basin, West Africa, etc. Only the United States has a global naval presence. That's why other countries will continue to count on Washington to protect the transit of all this oil and gas from threats like terrorist attack and even piracy. Why should China or India accept the costs and risks that go with safeguarding the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important energy bottleneck, when America will do it for them? That gives U.S. policymakers leverage they wouldn't otherwise have with their counterparts in other governments.¶ The U.S. provision of global public goods will also extend to new military challenges. As Iran and others master uranium enrichment technology, their nuclear clout may provoke neighboring states toward even greater reliance on Washington as guarantor of regional security and stability. That's not a bad thing if it helps ease the fears and pressures that might otherwise beget a nuclear arms race. As several Eastern European governments worry over the implications of Russia's increasingly belligerent approach toward some of its neighbors -- an anxiety heightened by Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas, Moscow's demonstrated willingness to turn off the taps, and last August's war with Georgia -- they'll turn to a U.S.-led NATO to ease their fears.¶ The U.S. military will also remain an essential weapon in America's soft power arsenal -- by delivering relief to victims of natural disasters abroad, for example.
|
Bremmer 09— an American political scientist specializing in US foreign policy, states in transition, and global political risk, president and founder of Eurasia Group, a leading global political risk research and consulting firm, and a professor at Columbia University (“Obama or not, U.S. still needs hard power”, 2/9, Ian, http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/09/the_durable_value_of_hard_power) EL
|
over the longer term, it's the country's hard power advantages that will ensure that America remains indispensable for the world's political and economic stability -- even as its soft power loses some of its appeal relative to that of other states.¶ The erosion of the U.S. soft power advantage has already begun. The global financial crisis has inflicted a lot of damage The rise of "state capitalism," as practiced in China, Russia, has created an attractive alternative. Breakout growth over the past several years in several emerging market countries ensures that American brands now share shelf space The icons of American popular culture share stage and screen with celebrities from a growing number of other countries. The Bush administration's unpopularity in much of the world has merely added momentum America's hard power advantages have their limitations their value is less subject to the ebbs and flows of popular opinion The United States now spends more on its military than every other nation in the world combined. It will be decades before any other state can afford to challenge the balance of global military power-assuming that any becomes willing to accept the costs and risks that come with global ambitions.¶ the world's oil and gas will continue to come from unstable parts of the world countries will continue to count on Washington to Why should China or India accept the costs and risks that go with safeguarding the Strait of Horm when America will do it for them? That gives U.S. policymakers leverage they wouldn't otherwise have with their counterparts in other governments.¶ As Iran and others master uranium enrichment technology, their nuclear clout may provoke neighboring states toward even greater reliance on Washington as guarantor of regional security and stabi it helps ease the fears and pressures that might otherwise beget a nuclear arms race they'll turn to a U.S.-led NATO to ease their fears.¶ The U.S. military will also remain an essential weapon in America's soft power arsenal -- by delivering relief to victims of natural disasters abroad, for example.
|
4. Hard power is inevitable and more important than soft power
| 3,848 | 63 | 2,106 | 625 | 11 | 341 | 0.0176 | 0.5456 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,538 |
Collecting Americans' phone and Internet records must meet the absolute highest bar of public consent. It's a test the Obama administration is failing.¶ The argument was effective, argues Caley Robertson of Colby University: segregation was frustrating the United States' attempts to export democracy during the Cold War. In other words, Jim Crow was damaging America's soft power, defined by Harvard professor Joseph Nye as a country's ability to achieve its aims through attraction rather than coercion.¶ Which brings us to PRISM, the NSA program that collects meta-data from Americans' telephone and online communications.¶ Ideas Report 2013¶ Modest ideas that can change the world. See full coverage¶ I am a former Department of Defense intelligence analyst. I have never used PRISM, and do not know if it existed during my tenure. However, I have used NSA databases, and became aware of two ironclad truths about the agency: First, its data is a critical intelligence tool; and second, that access to databases by non-NSA intelligence analysts is highly controlled. It's like buying drugs (so I'm told): you need "a guy" on the inside who passes you the goods in the shadows, then disavows any connection to you.¶ In addition to being useful and tightly controlled, PRISM is, of course, legal by the letter of the law. Its existence is primarily justified by the "business records" clause in the PATRIOT Act, and President Obama has argued that the legislation has been authorized by "bipartisan majorities repeatedly," and that "it's important to understand your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we're doing." Salvation from excessive government snooping would seem to lie at the ballot box.¶ Fair enough. But in the immediate wake of September 11, Americans questioned little of what their government would do to keep them safe. Just four months after the attacks in January 2002, Gallup reported that fully half of Americans would support anti-terrorism measures even if they violated civil liberties.¶ Times have changed. As soon as August 2003, Gallup found just 29 percent of Americans were willing to sacrifice civil liberties for security. By 2009, a CBS poll concluded only 41 percent of Americans had even heard or read about the PATRIOT Act, and 45 percent of those believed the law endangered their civil liberties. A Washington Post poll from April 2013--after the Boston marathon attacks but before PRISM's disclosure-- found 48 percent of Americans feared the government would go too far in compromising constitutional rights to investigate terrorism. And following the Edward Snowden leaks, 58 percent were against the government collecting phone records. Not a total reversal, but certainly trending in one direction.¶ This shift has existed in a vacuum of public debate. Prior to the PRISM leaks, the last time domestic government surveillance made headlines was in very late 2005 and early 2006, following revelations that the Bush administration was wiretapping Americans without a warrant. Despite the scandal, the PATRIOT Act was quickly reauthorized by March 2006.¶ The Bush administration did announce the end of warrantless wiretapping in 2007, and he moved the program under jurisdiction of the FISA court , a panel of Supreme Court-appointed judges who approve domestic surveillance requests. To call the FISA court a rubber stamp is an understatement. This year, it has rejected a grand total of 11 warrant requests out of--wait for it--33,996 applications since the Carter administration.¶ The PATRIOT Act's reauthorization wouldn't come up again until 2009. By then, public uproar over warrantless wiretapping had long since receded, and the year's debate played out as a relatively quite inside-baseball scuffle between civil liberties groups and the Hill. When the law came up for its next presidential signature in 2011, it was done quietly by autopen--a device that imitates Obama's John Hancock--from France.¶ Shifting attitudes and quiet reauthorization flies in the face of the standard the president has set for himself. In a 2009 speech at the National Archives, Obama emphasized the importance of the consent of the governed in security affairs,¶ "I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values... My administration will make all information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable."¶ The president's inability to live up to this ideal is particularly jarring as he defends PRISM. Following the leaks, he's said he is pushing the intelligence community to release what it can, and rightly insists that the NSA is not listening in on Americans' phone calls. Those are helpful steps, but should have been raised during the National Archives speech just months into his administration, not six months into his second term.¶ Director of National Intelligence James Clapper continues to argue that disclosure of collection methods will give America's enemies a "'playbook' to avoid detection." That's thin gruel. First, America's enemies are already aware of the NSA's extensive electronic surveillance capabilities. That's why Osama Bin Laden and deceased al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi used a complex network of couriers rather than electronic communications. It's typical operational security of truly dangerous operatives. Second, Obama stated as recently as late May that the threat from al Qaeda's core operatives has decreased significantly, shifting to less deadly cells scattered throughout the Middle East and North Africa.¶ The lack of public debate, shifting attitudes towards civil liberties, insufficient disclosure, and a decreasing terrorist threat demands that collecting Americans' phone and Internet records must meet the absolute highest bar of public consent. It's a test the Obama administration is failing.¶ This brings us back to Harry Truman and Jim Crow. Even though PRISM is technically legal, the lack of recent public debate and support for aggressive domestic collection is hurting America's soft power.¶ The evidence is rolling in. The China Daily, an English-language mouthpiece for the Communist Party, is having a field day, pointing out America's hypocrisy as the Soviet Union did with Jim Crow. Chinese dissident artist Ai Wei Wei made the link explicitly, saying "In the Soviet Union before, in China today, and even in the U.S., officials always think what they do is necessary... but the lesson that people should learn from history is the need to limit state power."¶ Even America's allies are uneasy, at best. German Chancellor Angela Merkel grew up in the East German police state and expressed diplomatic "surprise" at the NSA's activities. She vowed to raise the issue with Obama at this week's G8 meetings. The Italian data protection commissioner said the program would "not be legal" in his country. British Foreign Minister William Hague came under fire in Parliament for his government's participation.
|
Arkedis 6/19-- Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and was a DOD counter-terrorism analyst (Jim, 2013, “PRISM Is Bad for American Soft Power”, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/prism-is-bad-for-american-soft-power/277015/) EL
|
Collecting Americans' phone and Internet records must meet the absolute highest bar of public consent. It's a test the Obama administration is failing.¶ segregation was frustrating the United States' attempts to export democracy during the Cold War. In other words, Jim Crow was damaging America's soft power Which brings us to PRISM, the NSA program that collects meta-data from Americans' telephone and online communications.¶ in the immediate wake of September 11, Americans questioned little of what their government would do to keep them safe. Times have changed As soon as August 2003, Gallup found just 29 percent of Americans were willing to sacrifice civil liberties for securi following the Edward Snowden leaks, 58 percent were against the government collecting phone records. Not I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values... My administration will make all information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable."¶ The president's inability to live up to this ideal is particularly jarring as he defends PRISM America's enemies are already aware of the NSA's extensive electronic surveillance capabilities. Osama Bin Laden and deceased al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi used a complex network of couriers rather than electronic communications The lack of public debate, shifting attitudes towards civil liberties, insufficient disclosure, and a decreasing terrorist threat demands that collecting Americans' phone and Internet records must meet the absolute highest bar of public consent. It's the lack of recent public debate and support for aggressive domestic collection is hurting America's soft power.¶ The evidence is rolling in. The China Daily, an is having a field day, pointing out America's hypocrisy Chinese dissident artist Ai Wei Wei made the link explicitly, Even America's allies are uneasy Merkel grew up in the East German police state and expressed diplomatic "surprise" at the NSA's activities . The Italian data protection commissioner said the program would "not be legal" in his country Hague came under fire in Parliament for his government's participation.
|
5. PRISM is an alt cause to soft power
| 7,111 | 38 | 2,268 | 1,116 | 9 | 353 | 0.008065 | 0.316308 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,539 |
It is true that US attention to Latin America has waned in recent years. President George W. Bush was more focused on his “global war on terror.” His successor, Barack Obama, seemed to give the region little thought as well, at least in his first term. Indeed, at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April 2012, Latin American leaders felt sufficiently confident and united to challenge US priorities in the region. They urged the US to lift its embargo on Cuba, claiming that it had damaged relations with the rest of the continent, and to do more to combat drug use on its own turf, through education and social work, rather than supplying arms to fight the drug lords in Latin America – a battle that all acknowledged has been an utter failure. It is also true that Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond America’s sway. China is now Latin America’s second-largest trading partner and rapidly closing the gap with the US. India is showing keen interest in the region’s energy industry, and has signed export agreements in the defense sector. Iran has strengthened its economic and military ties, especially in Venezuela. Similarly, in 2008, Russia’s then-President Dmitri Medvedev identified the US war on terror as an opportunity to create strategic partnerships with rising powers such as Brazil, and with the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), a Venezuelan-inspired bloc opposed to US designs in the region. The energy giant Gazprom and the country’s military industries have spearheaded the Kremlin’s effort to demonstrate Russia’s ability to influence America’s neighborhood – a direct response to perceived American meddling in Russia’s own “near abroad,” particularly Georgia and Ukraine.
|
Ben-Ami, 13 Shlomo, former Israeli foreign minister who now serves as Vice President of the Toledo International Center for Peace, is the author of Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy, 6/5, Project Syndicate, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-new-nature-of-us-influence-in-latin-america-by-shlomo-ben-ami, “Is the US Losing Latin America” | ADM
|
US attention to Latin America has waned Obama seemed to give the region little thought as well Latin American leaders felt sufficiently confident and united to challenge US priorities in the region They urged the US to lift its embargo and to do more to combat drug use through education and social work rather than supplying arms Latin American countries have pursued a massive expansion of economic ties beyond America’s sway Russia identified the war on terror as an opportunity to create strategic partnerships with rising powers such as Brazil
|
6. The embargo, drug policy, and trade are alt causes – specifically, military aid over the drug war undermines us influence
| 1,758 | 124 | 548 | 284 | 21 | 90 | 0.073944 | 0.316901 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,540 |
The way America flexes it economic muscle around the world is changing dramatically—and not necessarily for the better.¶ In 1997, facing a wave of sovereign debt defaults, the International Monetary Fund asked its member states to pledge lines of credit to support Fund rescue efforts. The United States and other nations did as asked. In 2009, the United States responded again to a call for expanded credit lines. When the Fund sought yet another expansion of these credit lines last April, 39 countries, including China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, India, and Saudi Arabia, stepped up. Even cash-strapped Italy and Spain pledged support.¶ But the United States was conspicuously absent. A pledge from the United States requires congressional authorization. In the midst of last spring's contentious debate over U.S. government deficits and debts, support for an international body was a political nonstarter. Where the United States had previously demonstrated international leadership, other countries—some of them America's rivals for international influence—now make the running.¶ This is a small example of what may be a troubling trend: America's fiscal predicament and the seeming inability of its political system to resolve these matters may be taking a toll on the instruments of U.S. “soft power” and on the country's ability to shape international developments in ways that serve American interests.¶ The most potent instrument of U.S. soft power is probably the simple size of the U.S. economy. As the biggest economy in the world, America has a lot to say about how the world works. But the economics profession is beginning to understand that high levels of public debt can slow economic growth, especially when gross general government debt rises above 85 or 90 percent of GDP.¶ The United States crossed that threshold in 2009, and the negative effects are probably mostly out in the future. These will come at a bad time. The U.S. share of global economic output has been falling since 1999—by nearly 5 percentage points as of 2011. As America's GDP share declined, so did its share of world trade, which may reduce U.S. influence in setting the rules for international trade.¶ And it's not just the debt itself that may be slowing GDP growth. Economists at Stanford and the University of Chicago have demonstrated that uncertainty about economic policy—on the rise as a result of political squabbling over U.S. fiscal policy—typically foreshadows slower economic growth.¶ Investors may be growing skittish about U.S. government debt levels and the disordered state of U.S. fiscal policymaking.¶ From the beginning of 2002, when U.S. government debt was at its most recent minimum as a share of GDP, to the end of 2012, the dollar lost 25 percent of its value, in price-adjusted terms, against a basket of the currencies of major trading partners. This may have been because investors fear that the only way out of the current debt problems will be future inflation. The dollar has also given up a bit of its dominance as the preferred currency for international reserves among advanced economies. And the renminbi appears to have replaced the dollar as the “reference currency” for most of East Asia. (The good news is that in recent years U.S. banks have increased their share of deposits from foreigners, mostly at the expense of banks in London.)¶ More troubling for the future is that private domestic investment—the fuel for future economic growth—shows a strong negative correlation with government debt levels over several business cycles dating back to the late 1950s. Continuing high debt does not bode well in this regard.¶ But perhaps the worst consequences of U.S. debt are actions not taken.¶ U.S. international leadership has been based, in part, on contributions—political and financial—to major institutions and initiatives—International Monetary Fund, World Bank, General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (and later World Trade Organization), NATO, North America Free Trade Agreement, the Marshall Plan, and so on. These served U.S. interests and made the world better.¶ But what have we done lately? The Doha round of trade negotiations has stalled. Ditto efforts at coordinated international action on climate change. Countries of the Arab Spring need rebuilding. Little progress is apparent on the Transpacific Partnership, a proposed new free-trade area. And warnings from the U.S. treasury secretary to his European counterparts about the dangers of failing to resolve the fiscal crisis in the eurozone met with public rebukes: Get your own house in order before you lecture us. Have U.S. fiscal problems undermined America's self confidence and external credibility to the extent that it can no longer lead?¶ And what about unmet needs at home—healthcare costs, a foundering public education system, deteriorating infrastructure, and increasing inequality? A strained fiscal situation that limits resources for action and absorbs so much political energy cannot be helping with any of these matters. But without progress on such things, what becomes of the social cohesion necessary for unified action abroad or the moral authority to lead other nations by example?¶ America's fiscal predicament is serious. The problem has become obvious in the last few years, but it has been building for decades, largely the result of promises of extensive social benefits without a corresponding willingness to pay for them.¶ Putting U.S. government financing on a sustainable path will require painful adjustments over a number of years—increased government revenue and painful reductions in government outlays, almost certainly including outlays for defense and international affairs. During the necessary period of fiscal adjustment and constrained government resources, U.S. international influence may decline yet further.¶ But there is no alternative to getting on with the task. The world has not yet found an acceptable substitute for U.S. leadership.
|
Neu 2/8-- B.S. in economics, California Institute of Technology; Ph.D. in economics, Harvard University; M.A. in economics, Harvard University, Senior Economist at RAND (C. Richard, 2013, “U.S. 'Soft Power' Abroad Is Losing Its Punch”, http://www.rand.org/blog/2013/02/us-soft-power-abroad-is-losing-its-punch.html) EL
|
The way America flexes it economic muscle around the world is changing dramatically—and not necessarily for the better.¶ In 2009, the United States responded again to a call for expanded credit lines. When the Fund sought yet another expansion of these credit lines last April, 39 countries, including China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, India, and Saudi Arabia, stepped up. Even cash-strapped Italy and Spain pledged support the United States was conspicuously absent. A pledge from the United States requires congressional authorization. In support for an international body was a political nonstarter Where the United States had previously demonstrated international leadership, other countries now make the running.¶ This is a small example of what may be a troubling trend: America's fiscal predicament and the seeming inability of its political system to resolve these matters may be taking a toll on the instruments of U.S. “soft power The most potent instrument of U.S. soft power is probably the simple size of the U.S. economy. high levels of public debt can slow economic growth The U.S. share of global economic output has been falling since 1999 uncertainty about economic policy—on the rise as a result of political squabbling over U.S. fiscal policy—typically foreshadows slower economic growth.¶ Investors may be growing skittish about U.S. government debt levels and the disordered state of U.S. fiscal policymaking.¶ the renminbi appears to have replaced the dollar as the “reference currency” for most of East Asia. private domestic investment— shows a strong negative correlation with government debt levels o the worst consequences of U.S. debt are actions not taken.¶ S. international leadership has been based on contributions—political and financial—to major institutions and initiatives—International Monetary Fund, World Bank, General Agree NATO, North America Free Trade Agreement, the Marshall Plan The Doha round of trade negotiations has stalled Ditto efforts at coordinated international action on climate change. Countries of the Arab Spring need rebuilding Little progress is apparent on the Transpacific Partnership warnings from the U.S. treasury secretary to his European counterparts about the dangers of failing to resolve the fiscal crisis in the eurozone met with public rebukes what about unmet needs at home—healthcare costs, a foundering public education system, deteriorating infrastructure, and increasing inequality During the necessary period of fiscal adjustment and constrained government resources, U.S. international influence may decline yet further
|
7. Soft power collapse inevitable-- debt
| 5,986 | 40 | 2,596 | 935 | 6 | 383 | 0.006417 | 0.409626 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,541 |
According to the Congressional Budget Justification by the Department of State (FY2013), the U.S. will make a cut of 13 percent in aid to the Central Asian region. Assistance from the U.S. will stress the importance of security programs in the region rather than programs aimed at the economy, politics, health and/or education. Despite the drop in aid, U.S. policies toward Kyrgyzstan will continue to support programs aimed at assisting the country’s development.¶ Kyrgyzstan has since its independence in 1991, similar to its neighboring countries in Central Asia, become a new market for foreign aid. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been providing assistance to Kyrgyzstan since 1992 and is the largest single-country donor organization in the country. According to USAID, it has provided around US$ 460 million in programs aimed at supporting the country’s development in various sectors such as health care, the economy and democratic institutions. In Kyrgyzstan, USAID works in various fields such as education, economic growth and trade, agriculture and food security, global health, democracy, human rights and governance, and crisis and conflict management.¶ Over 21 years of assistance from USAID, Kyrgyzstan has overcome various obstacles as a nation-state. It went from being an authoritarian regime to having a parliamentary system. With two revolutions in 2005 and 2010 which were accompanied by violence, Kyrgyzstan is today working towards establishing government accountability and transparency. The flow of foreign aid greatly assists the government in creating a favorable environment in this regard. ¶ According to the U.S. Annual Submission to the OECD/DAC via USAID’s Foreign Assistance Database, Kyrgyzstan received US$ 54.1 million from USAID alone in 2011, and an additional US$ 4.3 million from the U.S. Department of State. The same year, Central Asia as a region received a total of US$ 28.9 million from both U.S. agencies. Out of all Central Asian countries, Kyrgyzstan was the largest recipient of USAID assistance in the region in 2011, whereas Uzbekistan received the smallest amount. The State Department’s aid to the region of Central Asia in 2013 would amount in total to US$ 118.3 million. Compared to 2012, the overall aid to the region has been cut by US$ 15.3 million. However, despite the drop in aid, U.S. security assistance to the region will remain largely unchanged.¶ According to the Department of State’s foreign assistance program, the main U.S. objective in Kyrgyzstan in 2013 will be “the consolidation of democratic gains in the country and the development of a more representative government that provides improved access to justice and better citizen services.” In other words, the U.S. will in 2013 allocate funding for programs that will focus on supporting democratic processes and building democratic institutions, respect for human rights and rule of law, and decreasing the level of inter-ethnic conflict. Like in previous years, the U.S. will continue to support the development of a parliamentary system and engagement of civil society.
|
CACI Analyst 4/3—Central-Asia Caucasus Institute (Aigul Kasymova, 2013, “U.S. To Cut Aid To Central Asia”, http://www.cacianalyst.org/publications/field-reports/item/12698-us-to-cut-aid-to-central-asia.html) EL
|
the U.S. will make a cut of 13 percent in aid to the Central Asian region Assistance from the U.S. will stress the importance of security programs USAID) has been providing assistance to Kyrgyzstan since 1992 and is the largest single-country donor organization in the country. it has provided around US$ 460 million in programs aimed at supporting the country’s development in various sectors such as health care, the economy and democratic institutions . It went from being an authoritarian regime to having a parliamentary system. The flow of foreign aid greatly assists the government in creating a favorable environment in this regard. ¶ Out of all Central Asian countries, Kyrgyzstan was the largest recipient of USAID assistance the main U.S. objective in Kyrgyzstan in 2013 will be “the consolidation of democratic gains in the coun the U.S. will in 2013 allocate funding for programs that will focus on supporting democratic processes and building democratic institutions
|
USAID cuts in Central Asia are an alt cause to soft power
| 3,125 | 57 | 980 | 483 | 12 | 156 | 0.024845 | 0.322981 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,542 |
The mandatory across-the-board federal budget cuts known as sequester are weakening America’s ability to effectively carry out foreign policy and are also highlighting the existing flaws in how the U.S. spends foreign affairs dollars.¶ ¶ Because the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development are mischaracterized as non-security agencies under sequester – despite their central role in U.S. foreign policy – the sequester will cut U.S. international affairs funding by 5 percent this year.¶ ¶ Five percent is a significant chunk of money – almost $3 billion – but the State Department and USAID have said the cut will not force them to furlough their employees. While obviously a good thing, such a policy emphasizes that the bulk of the State Department’s and USAID’s funding does not go to their most important resource: their people.¶ ¶ We conducted a study last year that found direct U.S. employee personnel costs made up only 31 percent of the State Department’s operating budget. USAID non-program funded personnel costs were only 37 percent of its operating budget. Operating budgets pay for the day-to-day running of the agencies.¶ ¶ Together, both agencies’ personnel costs are only 8 percent of the total U.S. international affairs spending. The sequester will not force furloughs because people are such a small part of the spending on international affairs.¶ ¶ Our study, titled “Diplomacy in a Time of Scarcity,” argued that this spending on personnel costs flipped the relationship of what was important in conducting international affairs; that even though they are a small part of the budget, the people who conduct U.S. diplomacy and development are the most important foreign policy asset.¶ ¶ While our study acknowledged the growth in personnel at both the State Department and USAID over the last few years, it found that that growth did not achieve the real needs identified years ago – needs that have only been complicated by a constantly changing world. And so the report argued that the United States needs to continue to grow foreign policy personnel numbers even as the budget crisis rages.¶ ¶ Today sequester is not only preventing this growth but reversing it. Although the State Department and USAID will not furlough employees, the sequester will force them to slow hiring and leave positions empty, over time eroding the size of America’s existing diplomatic and development workforce.¶ ¶ Sequester will also affect training, a key recommendation of the study. Just having more people is not enough. The U.S. needs to give foreign policy personnel not just basic training but advanced training that makes them more effective across all areas of foreign policy. As with the number of people, such training is something the State Department has always needed more of. Sequester both emphasizes how few resources are dedicated to this problem and exacerbates it by cutting what resources are available.
|
The Hill 3/25—“Sequester cuts hurting US foreign policy”, Thomas Boyatt, Ronald Neumann and Russell Rumbaugh, 2013, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/290105-sequester-cuts-hurting-us-foreign-policy) EL
|
The mandatory across-the-board federal budget cuts known as sequester are weakening America’s ability to effectively carry out foreign policy and are also highlighting the existing flaws in how the U.S. spends foreign affairs dollars.¶ ¶ Operating budgets pay for the day-to-day running of the agencies.¶ the growth in personnel at both the State Department and USAID over the last few years, it found that that growth did not achieve the real needs identified years ago Although the State Department and USAID will not furlough employees, the sequester will force them to slow hiring and leave positions empty, over time eroding the size of America’s existing diplomatic and development workforce.¶ Sequester will also affect training The U.S. needs to give foreign policy personnel not just basic training but advanced training that makes them more effective across all areas of foreign policy.
|
The sequester destroyed USAID
| 2,957 | 29 | 896 | 475 | 4 | 140 | 0.008421 | 0.294737 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,543 |
At least 70,000 children around the world could die if funding for global health programs is cut under the Republican budget proposal, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah warned Congress Thursday.¶ "What I worry about is that with the H.R. 1 budget [the proposed spending bill], if that becomes a baseline reality for fiscal year '12, that would be very problematic for some of our most important programs," Administrator Shah testified before the House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations subcommittee.¶ "We estimate, and I believe these are very conservative estimates, that H.R. 1 would lead to 70,000 kids dying," he said.¶ Shah said that 30,000 of those deaths would come if malaria control programs have to be scaled back, 24,000 would die from lack of support for immunizations, and another 16,000 would die at birth.¶ Shah's comments come as the Obama administration is fighting Congressional Republicans over how to fund the government this year. The impasse has led to the threat of a government shutdown.¶ Republicans have proposed significant cuts to the international affairs budget, 19 percent below 2010 enacted base levels, as part of an effort to reduce deficit spending.¶ "I believe there are ways to find the efficiencies we're all seeking, through being more businesslike in how we do our work, reining in contract partners and doing better program oversight. There's a way to do this that does not have to cost lives," Shah testified.¶ In her testimony before Congress last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the cuts, which would also hamper expanded efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, "would be devastating for our national security."¶ According to the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, which lobbies to increase funding for international affairs, the Republican budget proposal would cut funding for global health programs by 11 percent, including a reduction in money for the Global fund for HIV/AIDS by 43 percent. The group says that would mean 5 million children would not receive malaria treatments and about 43,000 would not receive tuberculosis treatments.¶ USAID Chief: Republican Foreign Aid Cuts Could Kill Children¶ The proposed budget would also decrease food aid programs by 30 percent and slash U.S. funding for disaster relief by 41 percent.¶ Shah said the disaster relief cut "would be, really, the most dramatic stepping back away from our humanitarian responsibilities around the world in decades. We are seeing an increase in the number of disasters, and we're seeing an increase in the need for American leadership, often to bring in other donors to do the cost sharing and burden sharing required to successfully see through a disaster response and a transition."¶ Shah pointed to Darfur, where 1.6 million people receive food and water through U.S. funding. The proposed cuts would mean half of those people, 800,000, would no longer receive that aid.¶ Lawmakers were split on the matter. Rep Kay Granger, the Republican chair of the subcommittee from Texas, said the Obama administration's budget request for 2012 was "unrealistic in today's budget environment."¶ Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the ranking member, said the cuts "would risk a great deal in stability and security around the world which could spawn the kinds of threats that cost this country the lives of men and women in uniform and billions in treasure."¶ Last month Secretary Clinton warned against cutting international assistance funding and withdrawing from the world.¶ "There have always been moments of temptation in our country to resist obligations beyond our borders. But each time we have shrunk from global leadership, events have summoned us back, often cruelly, to reality. We saved money in the short term when we walked away from Afghanistan after the Cold War. But those savings came at an unspeakable cost – one we are still paying, ten years later, in money and lives," she told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 1.
|
Radia 11—ABC News correspondent (“USAID Administrator: GOP Bill Could Kill 70,000 Kids”, 4/1, Kirit, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/usaid-administrator-rajiv-shah-republican-cuts-lead-child/storynew?id=13275542) EL
|
At least 70,000 children around the world could die if funding for global health programs is cut under the Republican budget proposal, with the H.R. 1 budget [the proposed spending bill], if that becomes a baseline reality for fiscal year '12, that would be very problematic for some of our most important programs 30,000 of those deaths would come if malaria control programs have to be scaled back, 24,000 would die from lack of support for immunizations, and another 16,000 would die at birth.¶ the cuts, which would also hamper expanded efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, "would be devastating for our national security."¶ the Republican budget proposal would cut funding for global health programs by 11 percent, including a reduction in money for the Global fund for HIV/AIDS by 43 percent. The group says that would mean 5 million children would not receive malaria treatments and about 43,000 would not receive tuberculosis treatments.¶ proposed budget would also decrease food aid programs by 30 percent and slash U.S. funding for disaster relief by 41 percent.¶ the disaster relief cut "would be, really, the most dramatic stepping back away from our humanitarian responsibilities around the world in decades. We are seeing an increase in the number of disasters, and we're seeing an increase in the need for American leadership, often to bring in other donors to do the cost sharing and burden sharing r Shah pointed to Darfur, where 1.6 million people receive food and water through U.S. funding. The proposed cuts would mean half of those people, 800,000, would no longer receive that aid.¶ There have always been moments of temptation in our country to resist obligations beyond our borders. But each time we have shrunk from global leadership, events have summoned us back, often cruelly, to reality
|
Cuts to malaria, immunization, and food aid
| 3,979 | 43 | 1,823 | 638 | 7 | 298 | 0.010972 | 0.467085 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,544 |
Following President Evo Morales' expulsion of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from Bolivia on Wednesday, some analysts are saying the only surprising thing about the news is in how long it took.¶ (Photo: ABI)¶ Making the announcement at a May Day rally in La Paz, Morales accused the U.S. of conspiring against his government, and said, “Some institutions of the United States Embassy continue to conspire against this process, against the people and especially against the country.”¶ This is why “We have decided to expel USAID from Bolivia.”¶ He also called USAID an "instrument that still has a mentality of domination," La Prensa reports.¶ But USAID's involvement in Bolivia has been questionable for years.¶ Writing in The Americas Blog, Center for Economic and Policy Research's Jake Johnston points out that¶ The role of USAID in Bolivia has been a primary point of contention between the U.S. and Bolivia dating back to at least 2006. State Department spokesperson Patrick Ventrell characterized Morales’ statement as “baseless allegations.” While State Department spokespeople and many commentators will characterize USAID's work with oppositional groups as appropriate, a look at the agency's work over the past decade paints a very different picture.¶ Documents obtained by investigative journalist Jeremy Bigwood show that as early as 2002, USAID funded a “Political Party Reform Project,” which sought to “serve as a counterweight to the radical MAS [Morales’ political party] or its successors.” Later USAID began a program “to provide support to fledgling regional governments,” some of which were pushing for regional autonomy and were involved in the September 2008 destabilization campaign that left some 20 indigenous Bolivians dead. Meanwhile, the U.S. has continually refused to disclose the recipients of aid funds. As a recent CEPR report on USAID activities in Haiti concluded, U.S. aid often goes into a “black box” where it becomes impossible to determine who the ultimate recipients actually are.¶ Damning information about USAID's role in Bolivia was also revealed in cables brought to light by WikiLeaks, as Johnston notes:¶ In one cable written by Ambassador Greenlee from January 2006, just months after Morales’ election, he notes that “U.S. assistance, the largest of any bilateral donor by a factor of three, is often hidden by our use of third parties to dispense aid with U.S. funds.” In the same cable, Greenlee acknowledges that “[m]any USAID-administered economic programs run counter to the direction the GOB [Government of Bolivia] wishes to move the country.”¶ The cable goes on to outline a “carrot and sticks” approach to the new Bolivian government, outlining possible actions to be taken to pressure the government to take “positive policy actions.” Three areas where the U.S. would focus were on coca policy, the nationalization of hydrocarbons (which “would have a negative impact on U.S. investors”) and the forming of the constituent assembly to write a new constitution. Possible sticks included; using veto authority within the Inter-American Development Bank to oppose loans to Bolivia, postponing debt cancellation and threatening to suspend trade benefits.¶ Another cable, also written by Greenlee, reporting on a meeting between U.S. officials and the Morales government notes that the Ambassador stated in the meeting, “When you think of the IDB, you should think of the U.S….This is not blackmail, it is simple reality.”¶ Later cables, as reported by Green Left Weekly, show the U.S. role in fomenting dissent within indigenous groups and other social movements.¶ Given this history, then, the question may be "not why, but why not sooner":¶ The AP spoke with Kathryn Ledebur of the Andean Information Network, reporting that she “was not surprised by the expulsion itself but by the fact that Morales took so long to do it after repeated threats.” Given the amount of evidence in declassified documents that point to U.S. aid funds going to opposition groups and being used to bolster opposition to the Morales government, the expulsion indeed comes as little surprise.
|
Germanos 5/2—staff writer for Common Dreams (“Bolivia's Booting of USAID 'No Surprise': President Evo Morales expels USAID from country following years of fomenting opposition”, Andrea, 2013, https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/05/02-7) EL
|
Following President Evo Morales' expulsion of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from Bolivia on Wednesday, some analysts are saying the only surprising thing about the news is in how long it took.¶ Morales accused the U.S. of conspiring against his government We have decided to expel USAID from Bolivia.”¶ He also called USAID an "instrument that still has a mentality of domination USAID's involvement in Bolivia has been questionable for years role of USAID in Bolivia has been a primary point of contention between the U.S. and Bolivia dating back to at least 2006 a look at the agency's work over the past decade paints a very different picture.¶ USAID funded a “Political Party Reform Project,” which sought to “serve as a counterweight to the radical MAS [Morales’ political party] or its successors USAID began a program “to provide support to fledgling regional governments,” some of which were pushing for regional autonomy and were involved in the September 2008 destabilization campaign the U.S. has continually refused to disclose the recipients of aid funds. .S. assistance, the largest of any bilateral donor by a factor of three, is often hidden by our use of third parties to dispense aid with U.S. funds.” m]any USAID-administered economic programs run counter to the direction the GOB [Government of Bolivia] wishes to move the country.”¶ Given the amount of evidence in declassified documents that point to U.S. aid funds going to opposition groups and being used to bolster opposition to the Morales government, the expulsion indeed comes as little surprise.
|
Latin American governments thinking USAID is destabilizing—Bolivia proves
| 4,155 | 73 | 1,604 | 650 | 8 | 257 | 0.012308 | 0.395385 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,545 |
Bolivian President Evo Morales sparked controversy on Wednesday when he called for the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, to leave his country.¶ The statement came during a May Day rally in La Paz, the Bolivian seat of government. Morales, who leads the Movimiento al Socialismo, or MAS, has long accused the U.S. government of conspiring against his leftist administration.¶ “They might think that they can manipulate us economically and politically here, but that is no longer the case,” he said to the crowds gathered outside of his presidential palace.¶ “The U.S. is still conspiring -- that is why we have decided to expel USAID of Bolivia.”¶ American State Department officials have denied Morales’ claims, calling them “baseless allegations.” But rumors of clandestine U.S. efforts to destabilize the Bolivian government have been circulating for years, lending some credence to the president’s suspicions.¶ A Falling Out¶ Bolivia and the United States have had a tense relationship since Morales was first elected in 2006. The American ambassador Philip Goldberg and other officials were expelled from the country in 2008, and Bolivia’s ambassador Gustavo Guzman was sent home from Washington in retaliation. Full diplomatic ties have since been restored, but the two ambassadors have yet to be re-exchanged.¶ At the heart of ongoing disputes is the coca plant, whose leaves are traditionally chewed by Bolivian indigenous groups; Morales himself once cultivated the crop as a farmer. But coca is a primary ingredient in cocaine, and U.S. officials have sought to curb production of the stimulant as part of Washington’s war on drugs.¶ Official assistance from the United States to Bolivia has been on the decline. In 2011, the last year on record with USAID data, aid disbursements to Bolivia totaled more than $96 million. That’s down from the $131.1 million disbursed in 2008, the year relations fell apart following the ambassador expulsions.¶ Though he has not made it official by notifying USAID itself, Morales seems prepared to renounce that assistance on the basis of Washington’s opposition toward his own administration.¶ “There’s been a number of declassified documents that came out, which point to a long history of efforts to undermine and limit the influence of the MAS political party,” said Jake Johnston, a research associate with the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “This dates back to well before Morales was elected.”¶ In 2008, for instance, ABC News published statements from an American Fulbright scholar in Bolivia who said that U.S. embassy officials had asked him to provide information on any Venezuelan or Cuban nationals he might come across in Bolivia. Peace Corps volunteers had reportedly received similar requests a year earlier. American officials deny those claims.¶ Wikileaks cables from 2009 show U.S. antipathy toward the constitution that was implemented under Morales in 2009, and toward the MAS party, which would go on to sweep general elections later that year.¶ Another cable from 2006, just after Morales was first elected, reveals then-Ambassador David Greenlee acknowledging that “many USAID-administered economic programs run counter to the direction the [government] wishes to move the country.”¶ USAID’s own data are too vague to shed much light on these implications. Official records name the sectors and agencies that implement American disbursements in Bolivia and other recipient countries, but they do not break the information down further to reveal the precise recipients of development monies.¶ “This gets to a larger issue with USAID: a lack of transparency on who’s getting the funding,” Johnston said.¶ Changing Dynamics¶ If Morales follows through on his threat to expel the aid organization, Bolivia stands to forfeit tens of thousands of dollars of American assistance funding on an annual basis.¶ That could have serious consequences for one of South America’s poorest countries, where about 26 percent of the population lives below the poverty line.¶ Then again, Bolivia’s economy has been doing well in recent years. It has enjoyed seven consecutive years of fiscal surplus, and the administration expects GDP to grow by 5.5 percent in 2013 to hit a record $28.7 billion.¶ This growth is fueled in large part by growing domestic demand for goods and a shrinking wealth gap. That’s not to say the administration’s fiscal policies are entirely sound; the country is still vulnerable due to high dependence on volatile mining and oil revenues, and extreme poverty still affects rural areas. But Bolivia’s ongoing growth is promising. A loss of USAID assistance would be detrimental, but not insurmountable.¶ In the end, Morales’ call to cut USAID could be little more than an empty threat -- an effort to get the organization in line with his own objectives. The president has called for its expulsion once before, in 2011. But given the suspicions surrounding USAID in Bolivia, combined with shrinking disbursements during a time of unprecedented economic growth in the South American country, Morales’ ideas about ending the assistance program aren’t as outlandish as they once were.
|
Fortin 5/2— world politics reporter at the International Business Times (“Bolivian President Morales Shuns USAID: Why He May Not Need The Money”, 2013, Jacey, http://www.ibtimes.com/bolivian-president-morales-shuns-usaid-why-he-may-not-need-money-1231287) EL
|
Morales sparked controversy on Wednesday when he called for USAID, to leave his country. “They might think that they can manipulate us economically and politically here, but that is no longer the case,” “The U.S. is still conspiring -- that is why we have decided to expel USAID of Bolivia.”¶ rumors of clandestine U.S. efforts to destabilize the Bolivian government have been circulating for years, lending some credence to the president’s suspicions.¶ Full diplomatic ties have since been restored, but the two ambassadors have yet to be re-exchanged.¶ Official assistance from the United States to Bolivia has been on the decline. In 2011, the last year on record with USAID data, aid disbursements to Bolivia totaled more than $96 million. That’s down from the $131.1 million disbursed in 2008, Morales seems prepared to renounce that assistance on the basis of Washington’s opposition toward his own administration.¶ Wikileaks cables from 2009 show U.S. antipathy toward the constitution that was implemented under Morales in 2009 “This gets to a larger issue with USAID: a lack of transparency on who’s getting the funding,” Bolivia’s economy has been doing well in recent years. It has enjoyed seven consecutive years of fiscal surplus, and the administration expects GDP to grow by 5.5 percent in 2013 to hit a record $28.7 billion.¶ This growth is fueled in large part by growing domestic demand for goods and a shrinking wealth gap. That’s not to say the administration’s fiscal policies are entirely sound; But Bolivia’s ongoing growth is promising. A loss of USAID assistance would be detrimental, but not insurmountable.¶ But given the suspicions surrounding USAID in Bolivia, combined with shrinking disbursements during a time of unprecedented economic growth in the South American country, Morales’ ideas about ending the assistance program aren’t as outlandish as they once were.
|
Lack of transparency and economic growth make USAID unnecessary for Latin American countries
| 5,191 | 92 | 1,901 | 815 | 13 | 300 | 0.015951 | 0.368098 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,546 |
On May 1, President Evo Morales expelled USAID from Bolivia for allegedly fomenting divisions within the country’s social movements in order to destabilize his government. The announcement came just days after Bolivia’s Constitutional Tribunal ruled that Morales can run for a third presidential term in 2014. The well-timed decisions could have important implications for Bolivia's political future.¶ 1767¶ Morales expels USAID. Credit: La Razón.¶ While USAID has funded health, educational, agricultural, and environmental projects in Bolivia for 50 years, its political agenda has long been suspect, especially in relation to Morales. As Kathryn Ledebur of Bolivia’s Andean Information Network notes, the agency’s alternative development programs in the Chapare region during the 1990s required coca growers to eradicate their crops and abandon their unions before receiving assistance, working to undermine the cocalero movement headed by Morales. In 2002, USAID funded a political project to counter Morales’s incipient MAS (Movement Toward Socialism) party.¶ After Morales’s election, USAID funding for “democracy promotion” bolstered pro-autonomy regional governments in the eastern lowlands that formed the core of the conservative opposition, working to destabilize the MAS government. These activities prompted Morales to expel the U.S. ambassador to Bolivia in 2008, followed by the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) in 2009. USAID was ousted from the Chapare in 2008. ¶ More recently, MAS government officials have accused USAID of funding popular organizations that oppose Morales’s policies, including the lowlands indigenous federation that has spearheaded resistance to the proposed TIPNIS highway. For indigenous groups, these accusations are a tactic to delegitimize social protest activities. Critics note that a wide range of organizations and programs in Bolivia, including the official Coordinating Unit for the Constituent Assembly (which drafted the 2009 Constitution) have benefitted from USAID funding, while maintaining their political independence. Says ex-Minister of Education Félix Patzi, “Accusing international organizations is a way of avoiding the conflict between the Bolivian government and social and labor organizations, and shows a lack of political clarity.”¶ While the government has not tied the rupture to any specific recent incident, it has alluded generally to eight projects, identified in 2011, in which USAID allegedly conspired to divide social sectors against Morales. For its part, USAID has denied all accusations of political interference.1769¶ USAID expelled from Chapare, 2008. Credit: Página Siete.¶ The lack of transparency and accountability in USAID funding has been a long-standing bone of contention. In November 2011, the United States and Bolivia signed a much-heralded “framework agreement” restoring diplomatic ties between the two countries and purporting to establish a new collaborative direction for assistance based on mutual respect for national sovereignty. The status of this agreement is now uncertain. ¶ Given this legacy of mistrust, recent commentators have suggested that the question is not why Morales expelled USAID, but why he did not do it sooner. The more relevant question for Bolivia is, why did he do it just now? ¶ For one thing, the timing was propitious internationally. Last June, following the coup in Paraguay, the ALBA group of nations signed a declaration advocating the expulsion of USAID by their member governments. In October, Russia ousted USAID for alleged political interference. Secretary of State John Kerry’s infamous reference to Latin America as the United States' “backyard” revived a wave of anti-imperialist outrage throughout the region. ¶ For another, with USAID funding now drastically reduced—from $92 million in 2008 to an estimated $14 million in 2014 (for both political and economic reasons)—the financial impact of the rupture will be relatively minimal. Morales has promised to absorb the cost of USAID’s social programs. Given the current strength of Bolivia’s economy, which has enjoyed seven consecutive years of fiscal surplus, this commitment seems feasible.
|
Achtenberg 5/11— urban planner and a former NACLA Research Associate with a focus on Latin American social movements and progressive governments (Emily, 2013, “Bolivia: USAID Out, Morales In For Re-Election Bid”, http://nacla.org/blog/2013/5/11/bolivia-usaid-out-morales-re-election-bid) EL
|
The announcement came just days after Bolivia’s Constitutional Tribunal ruled that Morales can run for a third presidential term in 2014. The well-timed decisions could have important implications for Bolivia's political future After Morales’s election, USAID funding for “democracy promotion” bolstered pro-autonomy regional governments in the eastern lowlands that formed the core of the conservative opposition, While the government has not tied the rupture to any specific recent incident, it has alluded generally to eight projects, identified in 2011, in which USAID allegedly conspired to divide social sectors against Morales. For its part, USAID has denied all accusations of political interference.1769 The lack of transparency and accountability in USAID funding has been a long-standing bone of contention. the timing was propitious internationally. following the coup in Paraguay, the ALBA group of nations signed a declaration advocating the expulsion of USAID by their member governments. Russia ousted USAID for alleged political interference. Kerry’s infamous reference to Latin America as the United States' “backyard” revived a wave of anti-imperialist outrage throughout the region. ¶ with USAID funding now drastically reduced— —the financial impact of the rupture will be relatively minimal. Morales has promised to absorb the cost of USAID’s social programs. Given the current strength of Bolivia’s economy, which has enjoyed seven consecutive years of fiscal surplus, this commitment seems feasible.
|
Bolivia is just one example—ALBA countries and Russia
| 4,187 | 54 | 1,529 | 610 | 8 | 219 | 0.013115 | 0.359016 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,547 |
From a U.S. perspective, it seems that the romanticized conception of “soft power” entails considerable opportunity costs. At an extreme, enthusiasm about the virtues and possibilities of “softness” can lead to atrophy of the policymaking process. After all, if one assumes that one’s values or modes of political or economic organization are so powerful that they will in time triumph all of their own, there is little reason to pay attention to policymaking. Assuming that “soft power” works without having to manipulate anything in a deliberate fashion is akin to assuming that some socio-cultural deus ex machina will intervene to make everything right without having actually to develop, articulate, and implement real policy.
|
Ford 12 — Christopher A. Ford, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, served in a variety of positions during the George W. Bush Administration including Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear Non-proliferation, holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from Oxford University, 2012 (“Soft on ‘Soft Power’,” SAIS Review, Volume 32, Number 1, Winter-Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Project MUSE, p. 104-105)
|
the romanticized conception of “soft power” entails considerable opportunity costs enthusiasm about the virtues and possibilities of “softness” can lead to atrophy of the policymaking process if one assumes that one’s values or modes of political or economic organization are so powerful that they will in time triumph all of their own, there is little reason to pay attention to policymaking. Assuming that “soft power” works without having to manipulate anything in a deliberate fashion is akin to assuming that some socio-cultural deus ex machina will intervene to make everything right without having actually to develop, articulate, and implement real policy
|
Soft power is useless and undermines maintenance of necessary hard power.
| 731 | 73 | 663 | 113 | 11 | 101 | 0.097345 | 0.893805 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,548 |
Prophylactic multilateralism cannot inoculate the USA from counter-hegemonic balancing. The reality of the USA's enormous power cannot be hidden by the veil of multilateralism. Moreover, what the feisty Brooklyn Dodger Manager Leo Durocher said about baseball is also true in international politics: nice guys finish last. The USA did not attain hegemony by being nice, but rather by assertively — and often aggressively — using its power. Although the USA may employ a discourse that professes its regard for others' interests and a commitment to multilateralism, whenever it chooses to do so it can use its power unilaterally to others' detriment. If other states did not understand this before (though many of them did), the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq dispelled any remaining illusions on this point. For much of the world, the invasion shattered one of the most important foundations upon which the notion of benevolent US hegemony is based: the perception that the United States is a status quo power. Since the Cold War's end, notes Walt (2005: 23), 'The United States has not acted as a "status quo" power: rather, it has used its position of primacy to increase its influence, to enhance its position vis-a-vis potential rivals, and to deal with specific security threats' (see also Sestanovich 2005).
|
Layne 10 — Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, former professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, the Naval Postgraduate School, and the University of Miami, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California-Berkeley, an LL.M. from the University of Virginia Law School, a J.D. from the University of Southern California Law Center, and a Diploma in Historical Studies from Corpus Christi College at the University of Cambridge, 2010 (“The unbearable lightness of soft power,” Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, Edited by Inderjeet Parmar and Michael Cox, Published by Routledge, ISBN 020385649X, p. 61-62)
|
Prophylactic multilateralism cannot inoculate the USA from counter-hegemonic balancing. The reality of the USA's enormous power cannot be hidden by the veil of multilateralism what Durocher said about baseball is also true in international politics: nice guys finish last. The USA did not attain hegemony by being nice, but rather by assertively — and often aggressively — using its power
|
Soft power won’t reduce anti-Americanism — it doesn’t alter international perceptions.
| 1,313 | 87 | 388 | 213 | 11 | 60 | 0.051643 | 0.28169 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,549 |
Hard power has not been in vogue since the Iraq War turned badly in about 2004. In foreign policy journals and at elite conferences, the talk for years has been about “soft power,” “the power of persuasion” and the need to revitalize the U.S. State Department as opposed to the Pentagon: didn’t you know, it’s about diplomacy, not military might! Except when it isn’t; except when members of this same elite argue for humanitarian intervention in places like Libya and Syria. Then soft power be damned.¶ The fact is that hard power is supremely necessary in today’s world, for reasons having nothing to do with humanitarian intervention. Indeed, the Harvard professor and former government official, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., who, in 2004, actually coined the term “soft power” in an eponymous book, has always been subtle enough in his own thinking to realize how relevant hard power remains.¶ As I write, the two areas of the world that are most important in terms of America’s long-term economic and political interests — Asia and Europe — are undergoing power shifts. The growth of Chinese air and naval power is beginning to rearrange the correlation of forces in Asia, while the weakening of the European Union in geopolitical terms – because of its ongoing fiscal crisis — is providing an opportunity for a new Russian sphere of influence to emerge in Central and Eastern Europe. Of course, both challenges require robust diplomacy on America’s part. But fundamentally what they really require is a steadfast commitment of American hard power. And the countries in these two most vital regions are not bashful about saying so.¶ Security officials in countries as diverse as Japan and Poland, Vietnam and Romania desperately hope that all this talk about American soft power overtaking American hard power is merely that — talk. For it is American warships and ground forces deployments that matter most to these countries and their officials. Indeed, despite the disappointing conclusions to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, rarely before has American hard power been so revered in places that actually matter.¶ Asia is the world’s demographic and economic hub, as well as the region where the great sea lines of communication coalesce. And unless China undergoes a profound political and economic upheaval — of a degree not yet on the horizon — the Middle Kingdom will present the United States with its greatest 21st century competitor. In the face of China’s military rise, Japan is shedding its quasi-pacifistic orientation and adopting a positive attitude toward military expansion. In a psychological sense, Japan no longer takes the American air and naval presence in Northeast Asia for granted. It actively courts American hard power in the face of a territorial dispute with China over islands in the East China Sea. Japan knows that, ultimately, it is only American hard power that can balance against China in the region. For South Korea, too, American hard power is critical. Though the South Korean military can ably defend itself against North Korea’s, again, it is America’s air and naval presence in the region that provides for a favorable balance of power that defends Seoul against Pyongyang and its ally in Beijing. As for Taiwan, its very existence as a state depends on the American military’s Pacific presence.¶ Don’t tell officials in the Philippines that American hard power is any less relevant than in previous decades. Like Japan, after years of taking the U.S. Navy and Air Force for granted, Manila is literally desperate for American military support and presence against China, with which it disputes potentially resource-rich islands and geographical features in the South China Sea. Like Japan and South Korea, the Philippines is a formal treaty ally of the United States: that is to say, these countries matter. As for Taiwan, it is arguably one of the finest examples of a functioning democracy in the world beyond the West, as well as geopolitically vital because of its position on the main sea lines of communication. Thus, Taiwan too, matters greatly.¶ Vietnam, for its part, has emerged as a critical de facto ally of the United States. It is the single most important Southeast Asian country preventing China’s domination of the strategically crucial South China Sea. And what is Vietnam doing? It is refitting Cam Ranh Bay as a deep-water harbor, officially to attract navies from India, Russia and elsewhere; but especially to attract the U.S. Navy.¶ Malaysia plays down its close relationship with the United States, as part of a delicate diplomatic minuet to get along with both China and the Muslim world. Nevertheless, the number of visits of American warships to Malaysian ports has jumped from three annually in 2003 to well over 50. As for Singapore, one of its diplomats told me: “We see American hard power as benign. The U.S. Navy defends globalization by protecting the sea lanes, which we, more than any other people, benefit from. To us, there is nothing dark or conspiratorial about the United States and its vast security apparatus.”¶ In 1998, the Singaporeans built Changi Naval Base solely to host American nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines. In 2011, there were 150 American warship visits to Singapore. Then there are the four American littoral combat ships that, it was announced in 2011, would be stationed in Singapore.¶ At the other end of Eurasia, whatever their public comments, diplomats from countries in Central and Eastern Europe are worried about any American shift away from hard power. In the 1990s, the security situation looked benevolent to them. They were in the process of joining NATO and the European Union, even as Russia was weakened by chaos under Boris Yeltsin’s undisciplined rule. Following centuries of interminable warfare, they were finally escaping history, in other words. Now NATO and the European Union — so vigorous and formidable in the 1990s – look fundamentally infirm. Meanwhile, Russia has been, for the moment, revitalized through a combination of natural gas revenues and Vladimir Putin‘s dynamic authoritarianism-lite. Russia once again beckons on the doorstep of Europe, and the Poles, Romanians and others are scared.¶ Forget NATO. With declining defense budgets of almost all European member states, NATO is to be taken less and less seriously. The Poles, Romanians and so on now require unilateral U.S. hard power. For years already, the Poles and Romanians have been participating in U.S. military missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and sub-Saharan Africa. They have been doing so much less because they actually believe in those missions, but in order to prove their mettle as reliable allies of the United States — so that the United States military will be there for them in any future hour of need.¶ As for the Middle East, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries all desperately require U.S. hard power: If not specifically for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, then certainly in order to promote a balance of power unfavorable to Iran’s regional hegemony.¶ Soft power became a trendy concept in the immediate wake of America’s military overextension in Iraq and Afghanistan. But soft power was properly meant as a critical accompaniment to hard power and as a shift in emphasis away from hard power, not as a replacement for it. Hard power is best employed not when America invades a country with its ground troops but when it daily projects military might over vast swaths of the earth, primarily with air and naval assets, in order to protect U.S. allies, world trade and a liberal maritime order. American hard power, thus, must never go out of fashion.
|
Kaplan 5/22-- Chief Geopolitical Analyst at Stratfor (“The Virtues Of Hard Power”, Robert D., 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/05/22/the-virtues-of-hard-power/) EL
|
didn’t you know, it’s about diplomacy, not military might! Except when it isn’t; except when members of this same elite argue for humanitarian intervention in places like Libya and Syria. Then soft power be damned.¶ hard power is supremely necessary in today’s world The growth of Chinese air and naval power is beginning to rearrange the correlation of forces in Asia, while the weakening of the European Union in geopolitical term is providing an opportunity for a new Russian sphere of influence they really require is a steadfast commitment of American hard power Security officials in countries as diverse as Japan and Poland, Vietnam and Romania desperately hope that all this talk about American soft power overtaking American hard power is merely that — talk it is American warships and ground forces deployments that matter most to these countries and their officials. Japan no longer takes the American air and naval presence in Northeast Asia for granted. It actively courts American hard power it is only American hard power that can balance against China in the regio . For South Korea, too, American hard power is critical it is America’s air and naval presence in the region that provides for a favorable balance of power that defends Seoul against Pyongyang and its ally in Beijing. As for Taiwan, its very existence as a state depends on the American military’s Pacific presence.¶ Manila is literally desperate for American military support and presence against China, with which it disputes potentially resource-rich islands and geographical features in the South China Sea the Philippines is a formal treaty ally of the United State Vietnam, for its part, has emerged as a critical de facto ally of the United States. It is the single most important Southeast Asian country preventing China’s domination of the strategically crucial South China Sea. It is refitting Cam Ranh Bay as a deep-water harbor, officially to attract navies from India, Russia and elsewhere; but especially to attract the U.S. Navy.¶ the number of visits of American warships to Malaysian ports has jumped from three annually in 2003 to well over 50. We see American hard power as benign. The U.S. Navy defends globalization by protecting the sea lanes, which we, more than any other people, benefit from Now NATO and the European Union look fundamentally infirm , Russia has been , revitalized the Poles, Romanians and others are scared.¶ With declining defense budgets of almost all European member states, NATO is to be taken less and less seriously. The Poles, Romanians and so on now require unilateral U.S. hard power. Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries all desperately require U.S. hard power: If not specifically for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, then certainly in order to promote a balance of power unfavorable to Iran’s regional hegemony
|
Hard power is key to US influence globally
| 7,698 | 43 | 2,868 | 1,263 | 8 | 469 | 0.006334 | 0.371338 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,550 |
These days “soft” power and “smart” power are in vogue (who wants to make the case for “dumb” power?) while American “hard” power is on the chopping block. This is, in part, a symbolic sacrifice to the fiscal crisis — even though the looming defense cuts are a drop in the bucket compared with the ballooning entitlement spending that is not being cut. And partly this is the Obama administration’s election-year strategy of playing to a presumably war-weary nation.¶ But there is a theory behind all this: The United States has relied too much on hard power for too long, and to be truly effective in a complex, modern world, the United States needs to emphasize other tools. It must be an attractive power, capable of persuading rather than compelling. It must convene and corral both partners and non-partners, using economic, diplomatic and other means to “leverage” American influence.¶ These are sensible arguments. Power takes many forms, and it’s smart to make use of all of them. But there is a danger in taking this wisdom too far and forgetting just how important U.S. military power has been in building and sustaining the present liberal international order.¶ That order has rested significantly on the U.S. ability to provide security in parts of the world, such as Europe and Asia, that had known endless cycles of warfare before the arrival of the United States. The world’s free-trade, free-market economy has depended on America’s ability to keep trade routes open, even during times of conflict. And the remarkably wide spread of democracy around the world owes something to America’s ability to provide support to democratic forces under siege and to protect peoples from dictators such as Moammar Gaddafi and Slobodan Milosevic. Some find it absurd that the United States should have a larger military than the next 10 nations combined. But that gap in military power has probably been the greatest factor in upholding an international system that, in historical terms, is unique — and uniquely beneficial to Americans.¶ Nor should we forget that this power is part of what makes America attractive to many other nations. The world has not always loved America. During the era of Vietnam and Watergate and the ugly last stand of segregationists, America was often hated. But nations that relied on the United States for security from threatening neighbors tended to overlook the country’s flaws. In the 1960s, millions of young Europeans took to the streets to protest American “imperialism,” while their governments worked to ensure that the alliance with the United States held firm.¶ Soft power, meanwhile, has its limits. No U.S. president has enjoyed more international popularity than Woodrow Wilson did when he traveled to Paris to negotiate the treaty ending World War I. He was a hero to the world, but he found his ability to shape the peace, and to establish the new League of Nations, severely limited, in no small part by his countrymen’s refusal to commit U.S. military power to the defense of the peace. John F. Kennedy, another globally admired president, found his popularity of no use in his confrontations with Nikita Khrushchev, who, by Kennedy’s own admission, “beat the hell out of me” and who may have been convinced by his perception of Kennedy’s weakness that the United States would tolerate his placing Soviet missiles in Cuba.¶ The international system is not static. It responds quickly to fluctuations in power. If the United States were to cut too deeply into its ability to project military power, other nations could be counted on to respond accordingly. Those nations whose power rises in relative terms would display expanding ambitions commensurate with their new clout in the international system. They would, as in the past, demand particular spheres of influence. Those whose power declined in relative terms, like the United States, would have little choice but to cede some influence in those areas. Thus China would lay claim to its sphere of influence in Asia, Russia in eastern Europe and the Caucasus. And, as in the past, these burgeoning great-power claims would overlap and conflict: India and China claim the same sphere in the Indian Ocean; Russia and Europe have overlapping spheres in the region between the Black Sea and the Baltic. Without the United States to suppress and contain these conflicting ambitions, there would have to be complex adjustments to establish a new balance. Some of these adjustments could be made through diplomacy, as they were sometimes in the past. Other adjustments might be made through war or the threat of war, as also happened in the past.¶ The biggest illusion is to imagine that as American power declines, the world stays the same.¶ What has been true since the time of Rome remains true today: There can be no world order without power to preserve it, to shape its norms, uphold its institutions, defend the sinews of its economic system and keep the peace. Military power can be abused, wielded unwisely and ineffectively. It can be deployed to answer problems that it cannot answer or that have no answer. But it is also essential. No nation or group of nations that renounced power could expect to maintain any kind of world order. If the United States begins to look like a less reliable defender of the present order, that order will begin to unravel. People might indeed find Americans very attractive in this weaker state, but if the United States cannot help them when and where they need help the most, they will make other arrangements.
|
Kagan 12-- American historian, author and foreign policy commentator at the Brookings Institution, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (Robert, 2/2, “The importance of U.S. military might shouldn’t be underestimated”, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-02/opinions/35445829_1_soft-power-hard-power-military-power) EL
|
These days “soft” power and “smart” power are in vogue there is a theory behind all this: The United States has relied too much on hard power for too long, and to be truly effective in a complex, modern world, the United States needs to emphasize other tools there is a danger in taking this wisdom too far and forgetting just how important U.S. military power has been in building and sustaining the present liberal international order.¶ That order has rested significantly on the U.S. ability to provide security in parts of the world The world’s free-trade, free-market economy has depended on America’s ability to keep trade routes open, even during times of conflict And the remarkably wide spread of democracy around the world owes something to America’s ability to provide support to democratic forces under siege and to protect peoples from dictators military power has probably been the greatest factor in upholding an international system that, in historical terms, is unique this power is part of what makes America attractive to many other nations. The world has not always loved America. During the era of Vietnam and Watergate and the ugly last stand of segregationists nations that relied on the United States for security from threatening neighbors tended to overlook the country’s flaws millions of young Europeans took to the streets to protest American “imperialism,” while their governments worked to ensure that the alliance with the United States held firm.¶ Soft power has its limits. No U.S. president has enjoyed more international popularity than Woodrow Wilson He was a hero to the world, but he found his ability to shape the peace, and to establish the new League of Nations, severely limited in no small part by his countrymen’s refusal to commit U.S. military power to the defense of the peace. John F. Kennedy, found his popularity of no use in his confrontations with Nikita Khrushche who, by Kennedy’s own admission, “beat the hell out of me” and who may have been convinced by his perception of Kennedy’s weakness that the United States would tolerate his placing Soviet missiles in Cuba There can be no world order without power to preserve it, to shape its norms, uphold its institutions, defend the sinews of its economic system and keep the peace. it is also essential. No nation or group of nations that renounced power could expect to maintain any kind of world order. People might indeed find Americans very attractive in this weaker state, but if the United States cannot help them when and where they need help the most, they will make other arrangements.
|
Empirics prove hard power is more influential than soft power
| 5,558 | 61 | 2,599 | 927 | 10 | 435 | 0.010787 | 0.469256 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,551 |
UNITED NATIONS — The General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to condemn the American trade embargo against Cuba, with the speeches by the United States ambassador and Cuba’s foreign minister reflecting that little has changed despite an expected shift under the Obama administration. Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parilla of Cuba spoke after a United Nations vote overwhelmingly condemned the embargo. The nonbinding resolution has been an annual ritual for 18 years. The vote this time of 187 in support, 3 opposed and 2 abstaining underlined the utter lack of support for the 50-year-old American attempt to isolate Cuba. (Israel and Palau joined the United States, while the Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained.) The Cuban foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez Parilla, noted that while President Obama had taken steps to ease strained relations, many Bush-era policies remained intact, including barring the export of medical equipment and pursuing fines against companies all over the world that do business with Havana. The United States has lifted some restrictions in recent months on Cuban-Americans visiting relatives or sending money, and opened the path for food and telecommunications companies to trade. But in September Mr. Obama extended the trade embargo for another year. “The economic blockade has not met, nor will it meet, its purpose of bending the patriotic determination of the Cuban people,” Mr. Rodríguez said. “But it generates shortages,” he added. “It is, no doubt, the fundamental obstacle that hinders the economic development of our country.” Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said the resolution ignored the oppression that she called the real cause of Cubans’ suffering. “The Cuban government’s airtight restrictions on internationally recognized social, political and economic freedoms are the main source of deprivation and the primary obstacle to development in Cuba,” she said. Ms. Rice called it regrettable that Cuba had not made any move to reciprocate the “important steps” taken by the Obama administration. Analysts said Mr. Obama had not gone nearly as far as some of his Democratic predecessors in changing the restrictions on Cuba. Under President Bill Clinton there were extensive academic and artistic exchanges, while President Jimmy Carter lifted the travel ban entirely. The problem, said Julie E. Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations, is that the two sides tend to talk past each other. For the United States, reciprocating would mean implementing greater civil rights in Cuba and freeing political prisoners, she said. The Cuban foreign minister noted in his speech that his country had already responded by proposing ways to improve bilateral ties. Mr. Obama has said that the embargo will be maintained until Cuba eases its domestic oppression, but that he wants to “recast” the relationship.’
|
MacFARQUHAR 09-- United Nations bureau chief of The New York Times (“U.S. Embargo on Cuba Again Finds Scant Support at U.N.”, Neil, 10/28, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/world/americas/29nations.html?_r=0) EL
|
The General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to condemn the American trade embargo against Cuba, with the speeches by the United States ambassador and Cuba’s foreign minister reflecting that little has changed despite an expected shift under the Obama administration. Foreign Minister of Cuba spoke after a United Nations vote overwhelmingly condemned the embargo. The nonbinding resolution has been an annual ritual for 18 years The vote abstaining underlined the utter lack of support for the 50-year-old American attempt to isolate Cuba many Bush-era policies remained intact, The economic blockade has not met, nor will it meet, its purpose of bending the patriotic determination of the Cuban people It is, no doubt, the fundamental obstacle that hinders the economic development of our country.” Obama had not gone nearly as far as some of his Democratic predecessors in changing the restrictions on Cuba
|
Cuban embargo kills soft power—UN vote proves
| 2,898 | 45 | 919 | 447 | 7 | 142 | 0.01566 | 0.317673 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,552 |
(Reuters) - Repeating an annual ritual, the U.N. General Assembly called on Tuesday for the United States to lift its trade embargo against Cuba, whose foreign minister said the blockade against the communist-run island was tantamount to "genocide." For the 21st year, the assembly's vote was overwhelming, with 188 nations - including most of Washington's closest allies - supporting the embargo resolution, a result virtually unchanged from last year. Israel, heavily dependent on U.S. backing in the Middle East, and the tiny Pacific state of Palau were the only two countries that supported the United States in opposing the non-binding resolution in the 193-nation assembly. The Pacific states of the Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained. President Barack Obama further loosened curbs last year on U.S. travel and remittances to Cuba. He had said he was ready to change Cuba policy but was still waiting for signals from Havana, such as the release of political prisoners and guarantees of basic human rights. But Obama has not lifted the five-decade-old trade embargo, and the imprisonment of a U.S. contractor in Cuba has halted the thaw in Cuban-U.S. relations. Havana's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told the assembly that Cuba had high hopes for Obama when he was first elected in 2008 and welcomed his calls for change. But he said the result had been disappointing. "The reality is that the last four years have been characterized by the persistent tightening of ... the embargo," he said. 'EXTERNAL SCAPEGOAT' Rodriguez said the "extraterritoriality" of the blockade measures - the fact that Washington pressures other countries to adhere to the U.S. embargo - violates international law. He added that the blockade is not in U.S. interests and harms its credibility. "It leads the U.S. to adopt costly double standards," he said, adding that the embargo has failed to achieve its objectives of pressuring the government to introduce economic and political freedoms and comply with international human rights standards. "There is no legitimate or moral reason to maintain this embargo that is anchored in the Cold War," he said. He said it qualified as a "act of genocide" against Cuba and was a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of an entire people." U.S. envoy Ronald Godard rejected the resolution's call for ending the blockade and Cuba's allegation that the United States was to blame for Cuban financial difficulties. He added that the government in Havana was putting the brakes on Cuba's further development, not the United States. "It is the Cuban government that continues to deprive them of that aspiration," he said, adding that Cuba was seeking an "external scapegoat for the island's economic problems." Godard said Washington was not punishing the Cuban people. He said $2 billion in remittances were sent from the United States to Cuba last year, while Washington had authorized over $1.2 billion in humanitarian assistance. He repeated Washington's calls for Cuba to "immediately release Mr. (Alan) Gross," a U.S. contractor serving a 15-year sentence in Cuba for setting up Internet networks, work that a judge said was a crime against the Cuban state. Gross' imprisonment halted efforts by Obama to improve long-hostile relations between the United States and Cuba. Rodriguez received a resounding ovation after his speech. No one applauded Godard as the assembly proceeded to the vote.
|
Charbonneau 12-- Bureau Chief, United Nations for Reuters (Louis, “U.N. urges end to U.S. Cuba embargo for 21st year”, 11/13, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/us-cuba-embargo-un-idUSBRE8AC11820121113) EL
|
the U.N. General Assembly called on Tuesday for the United States to lift its trade embargo against Cuba, whose foreign minister said the blockade against the communist-run island was tantamount to "genocide." For the 21st year, the assembly's vote was overwhelming, with 188 nations - including most of Washington's closest allies - supporting the embargo resolution, Israel, and the tiny Pacific state of Palau were the only two countries that supported the United States Obama has not lifted the five-decade-old trade embargo Rodriguez told the assembly that Cuba had high hopes for Obama when he was first elected in 2008 and welcomed his calls for change. But he said the result had been disappointing. The reality is that the last four years have been characterized by the persistent tightening of ... the embargo the "extraterritoriality" of the blockade measures - the fact that Washington pressures other countries to adhere to the U.S. embargo - violates international la the blockade is not in U.S. interests and harms its credibility. "It leads the U.S. to adopt costly double standards the embargo has failed to achieve its objectives There is no legitimate or moral reason to maintain this embargo that is anchored in the Cold War it qualified as a "act of genocide" against Cuba and was a "massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of an entire people." Rodriguez received a resounding ovation after his speech. No one applauded Godard as the assembly proceeded to the vote.
|
The embargo is incredibly unpopular even with close US allies- UN proves
| 3,456 | 72 | 1,510 | 551 | 12 | 247 | 0.021779 | 0.448276 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,553 |
April 13 (Bloomberg) -- When Barack Obama arrives at the fifth Summit of the Americas this week, Cuba will be at the heart of the U.S. relationship with the rest of the hemisphere, exactly as it has been for half a century. While Latin American leaders split on many issues, they agree that Obama should lift the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. From Venezuelan socialist Hugo Chavez to Mexico’s pro-business Felipe Calderon, leaders view a change in policy toward Cuba as a starting point for reviving U.S. relations with the region, which are at their lowest point in two decades. Obama, born six months before President John F. Kennedy imposed the embargo, isn’t prepared to support ending it. Instead, he’ll seek to satisfy the leaders at the April 17-19 summit in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, with less ambitious steps disclosed by the administration today -- repealing restrictions on family visits and remittances imposed by former President George W. Bush. That would mesh with his stated goal of changing the perception of “U.S. arrogance” that he attributed to his predecessor in his sole policy speech on the region last May. “All of Latin America and the Caribbean are awaiting a change in policy toward Cuba,” Jose Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Washington-based Organization of American States, said in an interview. “They value what Obama has promised, but they want more.” The policy changes unveiled today also include an expanded list of items that can be shipped to the island, and a plan to allow U.S. telecommunications companies to apply for licenses in Cuba. Symbolically Important Cuba, the only country in the hemisphere excluded from the 34-nation summit, is symbolically important to the region’s leaders, many of whom entered politics under military regimes and looked to Cuba and its longtime leader Fidel Castro, 82, for inspiration and support. Even though most countries shun the communist policies of Castro and his brother, now-President Raul Castro, the U.S. alone in the hemisphere rejects diplomatic and trade relations with the island. “Cuba represents a 50-year policy failure in Latin America and that’s why it’s so important for Obama to address it now,” says Wayne Smith, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, who headed the State Department’s Cuba interest section in Havana from 1979-1982. “Unless Obama wants to be booed off the stage, he better come with fresh ideas.” The U.S. president, 47, thinks it would be “unfortunate” if Cuba is the principal theme at the summit and would prefer the session focus instead on the economy, poverty and the environment, says Jeffrey Davidow, the White House’s top adviser for the meeting. Obama also understands that he can’t control the discussion and intends to deal with the other leaders as partners, Davidow told reporters on April 6. Past Protests That should be enough to avoid a repeat of the circus atmosphere surrounding the previous summit, held in 2005 in Argentina, when 30,000 protesters led by Chavez and Argentine soccer legend Diego Maradona burned an effigy of Bush. Obama will also benefit from the U.S.’s decision to take off the table its earlier proposal for a free-trade area spanning the Americas, an issue that divided countries at the four previous summits starting in 1994. Still, Obama’s meeting with Chavez, who last month called the U.S. president an “ignoramus” when it comes to Latin America, has the potential to generate a few sparks. To defuse the tension, Obama may say the U.S. is seeking good relations with governments across the political spectrum, says Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research group. Chavez, 54, joined Bolivian President Evo Morales, an ally, in expelling the U.S. ambassadors to their countries in September for alleged interference in domestic politics. ‘Unpredictable’ Chavez “The main concern at this point for the U.S. is the unpredictability of Chavez,” Hakim says. U.S. influence in Latin America waned under Bush as the war on terror diverted attention to the Middle East while the region expanded economic and diplomatic ties with Russia, China and other outside-the-hemisphere powers. In December, Brazil hosted the first-ever, region-wide summit of Latin American and Caribbean nations that excluded the U.S. The summit reinforced other initiatives such as the Union of South American Nations, which was formed by 12 countries to mediate regional conflicts, bypassing the OAS. Taking the “minor step” of easing travel restrictions to Cuba, a campaign pledge Obama made almost a year ago, may not satisfy the region’s increasingly assertive leaders, Julia Sweig, director of the Latin America program at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview from Washington. ‘A Lot on the Table’ “The Cubans are putting a lot on the table,” says Sweig, the author of two books on Cuba, including the forthcoming “Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know.” “The U.S. should test their intentions.” From Havana to the halls of Congress, momentum for a detente is building. Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, urged Obama last month to begin direct talks with the Cuban government and end U.S. opposition to its membership in the OAS. Other bills would lift travel restrictions for all U.S. citizens.
|
Goodman 09-- Bloomberg reporter responsible for economic and political coverage in Latin America (Joshua, 4/13, “Latin America to Push Obama on Cuba Embargo at Summit (Update1)”, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0_zyWMi297I&refer=uk) EL
|
When Barack Obama arrives at the fifth Summit of the Americas this week, Cuba will be at the heart of the U.S. relationship with the rest of the hemisphere While Latin American leaders split on many issues, they agree that Obama should lift the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. , leaders view a change in policy toward Cuba as a starting point for reviving U.S. relations with the region, which are at their lowest point in two decades That would mesh with his stated goal of changing the perception of “U.S. arrogance All of Latin America and the Caribbean are awaiting a change in policy toward Cuba they want more.” uba, the only country in the hemisphere excluded from the 34-nation summit, is symbolically important to the region’s leaders, many of whom entered politics under military regimes and looked to Cub for inspiration and support Even though most countries shun the communist policies the U.S. alone in the hemisphere rejects diplomatic and trade relations with the island. “Cuba represents a 50-year policy failure in Latin Ame The U.S. president, 47, thinks it would be “unfortunate” if Cuba is the principal theme at the summit Obama also understands that he can’t control the discussion Obama may say the U.S. is seeking good relations with governments across the political spectrum U.S. influence in Latin America waned under Bush as the war on terror diverted attention to the Middle East while the region expanded economic and diplomatic ties with Russia, China and other outside-the-hemisphere powers. Brazil hosted the first-ever, region-wide summit of Latin American and Caribbean nations that excluded the U.S. The summit reinforced other initiatives such as the Union of South American Nations, which was formed by 12 countries to mediate regional conflicts, bypassing the OAS. Taking the “minor step” of easing travel restrictions to Cuba may not satisfy the region’s increasingly assertive leaders The Cubans are putting a lot on the table The U.S. should test their intentions.” momentum for a detente is building.
|
It’s especially key to influence in Latin America
| 5,399 | 49 | 2,051 | 869 | 8 | 334 | 0.009206 | 0.38435 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,554 |
At Monday night's foreign policy debate, the first round of questions for the presidential candidates will involve "America's role in the world."¶ The answers from President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney likely will focus on military readiness and anti-terrorism efforts. That's what most Americans would expect to hear, given that their country has been involved continuously in overseas combat since the terrorist attacks of 2001.¶ But the U.S. role in the world is shaped by much more than just its ability to project military might. Leadership also is defined by economic power, as well as "soft" power — for example, the country's ability to attract and persuade people to adopt American values, according to Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor.¶ In the early 1990s, Nye's book Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power got people talking about the need to further develop economic and soft power. His ideas got traction because — with the Berlin Wall coming down in 1989 — many Americans were eager to explore new ways to lead in a post-Cold War era.¶ But after terrorists slammed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, the conversation turned back to military strength. Drones and Humvees seemed far more important than the attractive powers of Hollywood movies or mobile phones.¶ A Shift Back To Economic Leadership?¶ Now, with the Iraq War over and U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan winding down, Nye says the focus may be shifting back to those other two pillars — economic and cultural leadership.¶ "In the 21st century, the Iraq War caused a big drop in American soft power," Nye said. That's because many people in other countries saw the United States as being too aggressive, he said.¶ And then in 2008, when the subprime mortgage crisis hit, U.S. economic power declined too. Before the financial crisis, "there was the idea that Americans really knew how to run an economic system," he said. After the crisis, not so much.¶ But now, the wheel is turning again because both China and Europe are struggling with economic growth.¶ "If you compare us with Europe's economic system, we're doing pretty well," Nye said. "The dollar is still the safe haven."¶ And U.S college campuses are bolstering American soft power. "Most Chinese leaders have a kid at a university in the United States," Nye said. At this point, America is again the soft-power global leader "in everything from Hollywood to Harvard," he added.¶ Nariman Behravesh, chief economist of the forecasting firm IHS Global Insight and author of Spin-Free Economics: A No-Nonsense, Nonpartisan Guide to Today's Global Economic Debates, agreed with Nye that U.S. economic and soft power are coming back.¶ "We still have the largest economy in the world; we are still the No. 1 export destination; we still have lots of innovative companies, like Apple; we have the world's reserve currency; we have a dynamic economy, with oil and gas production increasing," Behravesh said.¶ "We have a lot going for us," he said "We've got our problems, but others have problems that are as bad or worse, and I include China in that. They have had a huge deceleration in their growth."¶ Dealing With The Debt¶ But going forward, America's role in the world will be largely shaped by how well Congress handles the budget deficit problems in coming months, he said. As other countries, especially in Europe, grapple with the problem of too much government debt, people around the world are looking to the United States for moral leadership, he said.¶ If the United States shows that it's possible for democracies to discipline themselves and control their debts, then its economic and soft power may surge, Behravesh said.¶ As part of overall U.S. foreign strategy, "we need to tackle our domestic deficit problem," he said.¶ "If we deal with it in a constructive way, people will view us favorably," Behravesh said. "It's a manageable problem. We can do this.
|
Geewax 12—senior editor, assigning and editing business radio stories, national economics correspondent for the NPR web site (Marilyn, “Can U.S. Still Lead In Economic And 'Soft' Power?”, 10/22, http://m.npr.org/news/Business/163387838) EL
|
U.S. role in the world is shaped by much more than just its ability to project military might. Leadership also is defined by economic power, as well as "soft" power In the 21st century, the Iraq War caused a big drop in American soft power That's because many people in other countries saw the United States as being too And then in 2008, when the subprime mortgage crisis hit, U.S. economic power declined too. Before the financial crisis, "there was the idea that Americans really knew how to run an economic system After the crisis, not so much.¶ But going forward, America's role in the world will be largely shaped by how well Congress handles the budget deficit problems in coming months, he said. As other countries, especially in Europe, grapple with the problem of too much government debt, people around the world are looking to the United States for moral leadership, he said.¶ the United States shows that it's possible for democracies to discipline themselves and control their debts, then its economic and soft power may surge As part of overall U.S. foreign strategy, "we need to tackle our domestic deficit problem
|
Effectively managing debt is key to promote US soft power
| 3,969 | 57 | 1,130 | 660 | 10 | 193 | 0.015152 | 0.292424 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,555 |
The conclusions from these independent studies were uniform and mutually reinforcing. There is an extremely low incidence of real biological (or chemical) events, in contrast to the number of hoaxes, the latter spawned by administration and media hype since 1996 concerning the prospective likelihood and dangers of such events. A massive second wave of hoaxes followed the anthrax incidents in the United States in October-November 2001, running into global totals of tens of thousands. It is also extremely important that analysts producing tables of “biological” events not count hoaxes. A hoax is not a “biological” event, nor is the word “anthrax” written on a slip of paper the same thing as anthrax, or a pathogen, or a “demonstration of threat”—all of which various analysts and even government advisory groups have counted hoaxes as being on one occasion or another.79 Those events that were real, and were actual examples of use, were overwhelmingly chemical, and even in that category, involved the use of easily available, off-the-shelf, nonsynthesized industrial products. Many of these were instances of personal murder, and not attempts at mass casualty use. The Sands/Monterey compilation indicated that exactly one person was killed in the United States in the 100 years between 1900 and 2000 as a result of an act of biological or chemical terrorism. Excluding the preparation of ricin, a plant toxin that is relatively easier to prepare, there are only a few recorded instances in the years 1900 to 2000 of the preparation or attempted preparation of pathogens in a private laboratory by a nonstate actor. The significant events to date are: • 1984, the Rajneesh, The Dalles, Oregon, use of salmonella on food; • 1990-94, the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo group’s unsuccessful attempts to procure, produce and disperse anthrax and botulinum toxin;80 • 1999, November 2001, al-Qaida,81 the unsuccessful early efforts to obtain anthrax and to prepare a facility in which to do microbiological work; October-November 2001, the successful “Amerithrax” distribution of a high-quality dry-powder preparation of anthrax spores, which had been prepared within the preceding 24 months.
|
Leitenberg 05 (Milton, Senior research scholar at the University of Maryland, Trained as a Scientist and Moved into the Field of Arms Control in 1966, First American Recruited to Work at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Affiliated with the Swedish Institute of International Affairs and the Center for International Studies Peace Program at Cornell University, Senior Fellow at CISSM, ASSESSING THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AND BIOTERRORISM THREAT, http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/assessing_bw_threat.pdf)
|
The conclusions from independent studies were uniform and mutually reinforcing. There is an extremely low incidence of real biological (or chemical) events, It is extremely important that analysts producing tables of “biological” events not count hoaxes. A hoax is not a “biological” event, nor is the word “anthrax” written on a slip of paper the same thing as anthrax, or a pathogen, or a “demonstration of threat”—all of which various analysts and even government advisory groups have counted hoaxes as being on one occasion or another Those events that were real, and were actual examples of use, were overwhelmingly chemical, and even in that category, involved the use of easily available, off-the-shelf, nonsynthesized industrial products. Many of these were instances of personal murder, and not attempts at mass casualty use. exactly one person was killed in the United States in the 100 years between 1900 and 2000 as a result of an act of biological or chemical terrorism. there are only a few recorded instances in the years 1900 to 2000 of the preparation or attempted preparation of pathogens in a private laboratory by a nonstate actor. The significant events to date are 1984, the Rajneesh, The Dalles, Oregon, use of salmonella on food 1990-94, the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo group’s unsuccessful attempts to procure, produce and disperse anthrax and botulinum toxin 1999, November 2001, al-Qaida,81 the unsuccessful early efforts to obtain anthrax and to prepare a facility in which to do microbiological work; October-November 2001, the successful “Amerithrax” distribution of a high-quality dry-powder preparation of anthrax spores, which had been prepared within the preceding 24 months.
|
Empirically denied – 2001 anthrax attacks and Syria dispersion should’ve spread globally.
| 2,188 | 89 | 1,704 | 341 | 12 | 266 | 0.035191 | 0.780059 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,556 |
We are led to believe that democracy and peace are inextricably linked; that democracy leads to and causes peace; and that peace cannot be achieved in the absence of democracy. Woodrow Wilson was one of the earliest and strongest proponents of this view. He said in his "war message" on April 2, 1917: A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic government could be trusted to keep faith within it or observe its covenants. It must be a league of honour, a partnership of opinion. Intrigue would eat its vitals away; the plottings of inner circles who could plan what they would and render account to no one would be a corruption seated at its very heart. Only free peoples can hold their purpose and their honour steady to a common end and prefer the interests of mankind to any narrow interest of their own. Spencer R. Weart alleges that democracies rarely if ever go to war with each other. Even if this is true, it distorts reality and makes people far too sanguine about democracy’s ability to deliver the world’s greatest need today — peace. In reality, the main threat to world peace today is not war between two nation-states, but (1) nuclear arms proliferation; (2) terrorism; and (3) ethnic and religious conflict within states. As this paper was being written, India, the world’s largest democracy, appeared to be itching to start a war with Pakistan, bringing the world closer to nuclear war than it has been for many years. The United States, the world’s leading democracy, is waging war in Afghanistan, which war relates to the second and third threats noted above — terrorism and ethnic/religious conflict. If the terrorists are to be believed — and why would they lie?─they struck at the United States on September 11th because of its democratically-induced interventions into ethnic/religious disputes in their parts of the world. As I shall argue below, democracy is implicated in all three major threats to world peace and others as well. The vaunted political machinery of democracy has failed to deliver on its promises. The United States, the quintessential democracy, was directly or indirectly involved in most of the major wars in the 20th Century. On September 11, 2001, the 350-year experiment with the modern nation-state ended in failure. A radical re-thinking of the relationship between the individual and the collective, society and state is urgently required. Our lives depend on it. We must seriously question whether the primitive and ungainly political technology of democracy can possibly keep the peace in tomorrow’s world. Thus, a thorough reconsideration of the relationship between democracy and peace is essential. This paper makes a beginning in that direction.
|
Ostrowski 02, (James Ostrowski is a lawyer and a libertarian author. “The Myth of Democratic Peace.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/james-ostrowski/the-myth-of-democratic-peace/)
|
We are led to believe that democracy and peace are inextricably linked; that democracy leads to and causes peace; and that peace cannot be achieved in the absence of democracy. Even if this is true, it distorts reality and makes people far too sanguine about democracy’s ability to deliver the world’s greatest need today — peace. In reality, the main threat to world peace today is not war between two nation-states, but (1) nuclear arms proliferation; (2) terrorism; and (3) ethnic and religious conflict within states. The United States, the world’s leading democracy, is waging war in Afghanistan, which war relates to the second and third threats noted above — terrorism and ethnic/religious conflict. If the terrorists are to be believed — and why would they lie?─they struck at the United States on September 11th because of its democratically-induced interventions into ethnic/religious disputes in their parts of the world. democracy is implicated in all three major threats to world peace and others as well. The vaunted political machinery of democracy has failed to deliver on its promises. The United States, the quintessential democracy, was directly or indirectly involved in most of the major wars in the 20th Century We must seriously question whether the primitive and ungainly political technology of democracy can possibly keep the peace in tomorrow’s world. Thus, a thorough reconsideration of the relationship between democracy and peace is essential. This paper makes a beginning in that direction.
|
Peace theories not true.
| 2,775 | 24 | 1,521 | 457 | 4 | 240 | 0.008753 | 0.525164 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,557 |
Morse: A pandemic is a very big epidemic. It requires a number of things. There are many infections that get introduced from time to time in the human population and, like Ebola, burn themselves out because they kill too quickly or they don’t have a way to get from person to person. They are a terrible tragedy, but also, in a sense, it is a lucky thing that they don’t have an efficient means of transmission. In some cases, we may inadvertently create pathways to allow transmission of infections that may be poorly transmissible, for example, spreading HIV through needle sharing, the blood supply, and, of course, initially through the commercial sex trade. The disease is not easily transmitted, but we provided, without realizing it, means for it to spread. It is now pandemic in spite of its relatively inefficient transmission. We also get complacent and do not take steps to prevent its spread.
|
Morse, 04 (Stephen, PhD, director of the Center for Public Health Preparedness, at the Mailman School of Public Health of Columbia University, May 2004, “Emerging and Reemerging Infectious Diseases: A Global Problem,” http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/morse.html, Hensel)
|
many infections that get introduced from time to time in the human population burn themselves out because they kill too quickly or they don’t have a way to get from person to person. They are a terrible tragedy but it is a lucky thing that they don’t have an efficient means of transmission.
|
No internal link – cooperation between the US-Mexico to a point are inevitable – no reason the plan’s the only way to prevent disease vectors.
| 904 | 143 | 291 | 154 | 25 | 53 | 0.162338 | 0.344156 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,558 |
But shortly after Mexico’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, took office in December, American agents got a clear message that the dynamics, with Washington holding the clear upper hand, were about to change. In another clash, American security officials were recently asked to leave an important intelligence center in Monterrey, where they had worked side by side with an array of Mexican military and police commanders collecting and analyzing tips and intelligence on drug gangs. The Mexicans, scoffing at the notion of Americans’ having so much contact with different agencies, questioned the value of the center and made clear that they would put tighter reins on the sharing of drug intelligence. There have long been political sensitivities in Mexico over allowing too much American involvement. But the recent policy changes have rattled American officials used to far fewer restrictions than they have faced in years.
|
Archibold et. al. 4/30 (Randal C., Damien Cave, Ginger Thompson, New York Times, April 30, 2013, “Mexico’s Curbs on U.S. Role in Drug Fight Spark Friction,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/americas/friction-between-us-and-mexico-threatens-efforts-on-drugs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, alp)
|
shortly after Nieto, took office American agents got a clear message that the dynamics, with Washington were about to change. American security officials were asked to leave an important intelligence center Mexicans questioned the value of the center and made clear that they would put tighter reins on the sharing of drug intelligence. There have long been political sensitivities in Mexico over allowing too much American involvement. recent policy changes attled American officials used to far fewer restrictions
|
US involvement is uniquely controversial
| 928 | 40 | 515 | 145 | 5 | 78 | 0.034483 | 0.537931 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,559 |
INVESTORS who were starry eyed about Mexico’s economic potential at the start of the year are now having misgivings. From a record high then, the stockmarket fell to an eight-month low on May 21st. Just to rub it in, stocks in Brazil, which Mexico views as its main regional rival, have recently been performing much better. The immediate catalyst for the change of mood is the economy. In December, just as President Enrique Peña Nieto came to power promising to increase Mexico’s growth potential, the country’s strong recovery from the 2008-09 global financial crisis hit the skids. In the first quarter of 2013 sluggish sales to the United States, by far Mexico’s largest export market, helped reduce growth to a modest 0.8% compared with the same period in 2012. A fall in public spending as a new party took power contributed to the dip. Other economic data in recent days have added to the worries. Foreign direct investment last year plunged to $12.7 billion, from an average of around $23 billion during the past decade, according to CEPAL, a UN-linked research organisation. It said the figure was affected by one-offs, such as a decision by Spain’s Banco Santander to list its Mexican subsidiary, raising $4 billion. That counted as an outflow of foreign investment. Some economists pointed to concerns that high levels of drug-related crime may also be taking a toll on investment, notably in tourism. Last year Mexico slipped out of the top ten of global tourist destinations.
|
The Economist 5/25 (The Economist, May 25, 2013, “Reality bites: Lacklustre growth shows the need for reform,” http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21578440-lacklustre-growth-shows-need-reform-reality-bites, alp)
|
INVESTORS who were starry eyed about Mexico’s economic potential are having misgivings. the stockmarket fell to an eight-month low on May 21st. The immediate catalyst for the change of mood is the economy. the country’s strong recovery from the 08-09 global financial crisis hit the skids. In the first quarter of 2013 sluggish sales to the U S y far Mexico’s largest export market, helped reduce growth A fall in public spending as a new party took power contributed to the dip. Other economic data added to the worries. F d i ged to $12.7 billion, from an average of around $23 billion according to CEPAL, a UN research organisation. economists pointed to concerns that high levels of drug-related crime may also be taking a toll on investment, notably in tourism. Mexico slipped out of the top ten of global tourist destinations.
|
Mexican economy declining now – losing revenue sources
| 1,489 | 54 | 832 | 249 | 8 | 142 | 0.032129 | 0.570281 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,560 |
The goals of comprehensive tax reform are to strengthen the government’s revenues and tax base, while creating a fairer tax system. According to the Finance Ministry, the Mexican government collected 9.8% of GDP in taxes in 2012 and is expected to collect 9.7% of GDP in 2013. Even including revenue from Pemex and other government-run companies, Mexico collects a smaller percentage of its GDP in taxes than any other country in the OECD (19.7% in 2011). The average OECD country collects a third of its GDP in public revenue. For the Mexican government to meaningfully reduce its dependence on Pemex, it must increase its non-oil tax revenue by at least 6% of GDP.
|
Schtulmann and Broholm 2/18 (Alejandro and Sergio, EconoMonitor, February 18, 2013, “Mexico’s Tax Reform in the Works: Preview and Initial Considerations,” http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2013/02/mexicos-tax-reform-in-the-works-preview-and-initial-considerations/, alp)
|
The goals of comprehensive tax reform are to strengthen the government’s revenues and tax base According to the Finance Ministry, the Mexican government collected 9.8% of GDP in taxes in 2012 and is expected to collect 9.7% of GDP in 2013. Even including revenue from Pemex Mexico collects a smaller percentage of its GDP than any other country in the OECD For the Mexican government to meaningfully reduce its dependence on Pemex, it must increase its non-oil tax revenue by 6% of GDP.
|
Turns and solves their PEMEX good impact
| 666 | 40 | 486 | 113 | 7 | 83 | 0.061947 | 0.734513 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,561 |
A well designed tax system can bring about the additional public revenues which are needed to finance extra spending on strategic areas such as education and infrastructures. Importantly, it can do so with minimal economic distortions and in ways that better insulate the tax base from the vagaries of the business cycle and oil price fluctuations. Having a larger and more stable tax base is indeed crucial to secure the higher level of taxes and public spending that Mexico currently requires to boost its potential growth. All in all a well designed tax system can support growth, via higher and more predictable spending on infrastructure, human capital development, basic health programmes and targeted poverty relief, provided the overall size of the government is not excessive. In Mexico, the tax/GDP ratio is very low and because of weaknesses in the tax design the associated economic distortions are unnecessarily large (Figure 1). This has imposed constraints on public spending. As mentioned before, the areas where more and better public spending would be conducive to faster economic development are: The education and training system, which is a case on its own. Additional resources could be used to address some of the shortcomings, including a backlog in investment, but as importantly, efforts should focus on using more effectively the resources that are being channeled to the system. Spending on physical infrastructure should be at a higher level; and the financing should not be subject to stop and go behaviour. Although effective in meeting budget targets “cyclical cuts”, caused by volatile financing, almost certainly affect programmes which are essential for Mexico’s development, thus jeopardizing the effectiveness of expenditure. Additional spending on basic health care would also contribute to improving human capital. And preserving social programmes, including targeted poverty relief (known as PROGRESA/Oportunidades), from drastic cuts is also important.
|
Cotis No date (Jean Philippe, senior official and French economist, former Director General of the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, former professor of economic policy at the University of Paris, OECD, no date, “WHAT ARE THE OECD’S VIEWS ABOUT THE MEXICAN TAX REFORM,” http://www.oecd.org/mexico/22425199.pdf, alp)
|
A well designed tax system can bring public revenues which are needed to finance extra spending on strategic areas such as education and infrastructures. Having a more stable tax base is crucial to secure the higher level of taxes and public spending that Mexico requires to boost its potential growth. a well designed tax system can support growth, via higher and more predictable spending on infrastructure, human capital development, basic health and targeted poverty relief, because of weaknesses in the tax design economic distortions are unnecessarily large This has imposed constraints on public spending. the areas where more and better public spending would be conducive to faster economic development are: education physical infrastructure basic health care targeted poverty relief from drastic cuts
|
Tax reform is key to poverty reduction, health care, and education
| 1,993 | 66 | 809 | 303 | 11 | 122 | 0.036304 | 0.40264 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,562 |
Education is a fundamental human right and essential for the exercise of all other human rights. It promotes individual freedom and empowerment and yields important development benefits. Yet millions of children and adults remain deprived of educational opportunities, many as a result of poverty. Normative instruments of the United Nations and UNESCO lay down international legal obligations for the right to education. These instruments promote and develop the right of every person to enjoy access to education of good quality, without discrimination or exclusion. These instruments bear witness to the great importance that Member States and the international community attach to normative action for realizing the right to education. It is for governments to fulfil their obligations both legal and political in regard to providing education for all of good quality and to implement and monitor more effectively education strategies. Education is a powerful tool by which economically and socially marginalized adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and participate fully as citizens.
|
UNESCO No date (UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, “The Right to Education,” no date, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/right-to-education/, alp)
|
Education is a fundamental human right and essential for the exercise of all other human rights. It promotes individual freedom and empowerment and yields important development benefits. It is for governments to fulfil their obligations both legal and political in regard to providing education for all of good quality and to implement and monitor more effectively education strategies. Education is a powerful tool by which economically and socially marginalized adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and participate fully as citizens.
|
Preserving education is a d-rule
| 1,106 | 32 | 553 | 165 | 5 | 83 | 0.030303 | 0.50303 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,563 |
Before signing international trade or investment treaties or designing fiscal policies, governments should ensure the compatibility of these policies with their human rights obligations, while avoiding measures “that create, sustain or increase poverty, domestically or extraterritorially”. This is necessary to conciliate the human rights international regulations with the reality of poverty in which most part of the world population lives. The World Bank has a monetary definition of poverty and has set the poverty line on income below one-dollar a day (now adjusted to one dollar and twenty-five cents). According to the human rights approach, poverty is, in turn, “a human condition characterised by the sustained or chronic deprivation of resources, capabilities, choices, security and power”. Poverty, says the preface to the “principles” which have been declared final by Sepúlveda, is “both a cause and a consequence of human rights violations”. Poor people “experience many interrelated and mutually reinforcing deprivations –including dangerous work conditions, unsafe housing, lack of nutritious food, unequal access to justice, lack of political power and limited access to health care– that prevent them from realizing their rights and perpetuate their poverty”. Thus, the first principle proposed is that of human dignity, together with “the indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependece of all rights”. The other principles are equality against all discrimination, which “includes the right to be protected from the negative stigma attached to conditions of poverty”, equality between men and women, the rights of the child, the agency and autonomy of persons living in extreme poverty, participation and empowerment, transparency and access to information and accountability. Based on these principles, States should adopt national strategies to reduce poverty and achieve social integration, with clear reference points and deadlines, and well-defined plans of action. Public policies should give “due priority” to poor people and the “facilities, goods and services required for the enjoyment of human rights” should be “accessible, available, adaptable, affordable and of good quality”. States have the already mentioned obligation to be coherent, request international assistance when their efforts are not sufficient and provide assistance if they are in a position to do so, being accountable for their interventions. “In a world characterised by an unprecedented level of economic development, technological means and financial resources, that millions of persons are living in extreme poverty is a moral outrage”, reads the preface of the paper. When it becomes approved, eradicating extreme poverty shall not only be a moral duty but also a legal obligation.
|
Bissio 12 (Roberto, executive director of the Third World Institute, journalist, SocialWatch, September 6, 2012, “ERADICATING POVERTY: FROM MORAL DUTY TO LEGAL OBLIGATION,” http://www.socialwatch.org/node/15326, alp)
|
Before signing international trade or investment treaties governments should ensure the compatibility of these with human rights obligations, while avoiding measures “that create, sustain or increase poverty The World Bank has a monetary definition of poverty below one dollar and twenty-five cents poverty is “a human condition characterised by the sustained or chronic deprivation of resources, capabilities, choices, security and power”. Poverty is “both a cause and a consequence of human rights violations”. the first principle proposed is that of human dignity, together with “the indivisibility, interrelatedness and interdependece of all rights”. States should adopt national strategies to reduce poverty and achieve social integration, Public policies should give “due priority” to poor people and the “facilities, goods and services required for the enjoyment of human rights” should be “accessible, available, adaptable, affordable and of good quality”. States have the obligation to be coherent when their efforts are not sufficient and provide assistance if they are in a position to do so, being accountable for their interventions. “In a world characterised by an unprecedented level of economic development living in extreme poverty is a moral outrage”, eradicating extreme poverty shall not only be a moral duty but also a legal obligation.
|
Poverty prevention is a d-rule – outweighs the aff
| 2,792 | 50 | 1,357 | 407 | 9 | 200 | 0.022113 | 0.4914 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,564 |
Discussion of national strategy normally begins with the question of national security. But a discussion of Mexico's strategy must begin with economics. This is because Mexico's neighbor is the United States, whose military power in North America denies Mexico military options that other nations might have. But proximity to the United States does not deny Mexico economic options. Indeed, while the United States overwhelms Mexico from a national security standpoint, it offers possibilities for economic growth. Mexico is now the world's 14th-largest economy, just above South Korea and just below Australia. Its gross domestic product was $1.16 trillion in 2011. It grew by 3.8 percent in 2011 and 5.5 percent in 2010. Before a major contraction of 6.9 percent in 2009 following the 2008 crisis, Mexico's GDP grew by an average of 3.3 percent in the five years between 2004 and 2008. When looked at in terms of purchasing power parity, a measure of GDP in terms of actual purchasing power, Mexico is the 11th-largest economy in the world, just behind France and Italy. It is also forecast to grow at just below 4 percent again this year, despite slowing global economic trends, thanks in part to rising U.S. consumption. Total economic size and growth is extremely important to total national power. But Mexico has a single profound economic problem: According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Mexico has the second-highest level of inequality among member nations. More than 50 percent of Mexico's population lives in poverty, and some 14.9 percent of its people live in intense poverty, meaning they have difficulty securing the necessities of life. At the same time, Mexico is home to the richest man in the world, telecommunications mogul Carlos Slim. The primary strategic problem for Mexico is the potential for internal instability driven by inequality. Northern and central Mexico have the highest human development index, nearly on the European level, while the mountainous, southernmost states are well below that level. Mexican inequality is geographically defined, though even the wealthiest regions have significant pockets of inequality. We must remember that this is not Western-style gradient inequality, but cliff inequality where the poor live utterly different lives from even the middle class.
|
Friedman 8/21 (George, STRATFOR, August 21, 2012, “Mexico's Strategy,” http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/mexicos-strategy, alp)
|
Discussion of national strategy normally begins with national security. a discussion of Mexico's strategy must begin with economics. proximity to the U S does not deny Mexico economic options. Mexico is the world's 14th-largest economy, Mexico's GDP grew by an average of 3.3 percent in the five years between 2004 and 2008. in terms of purchasing power parity Mexico is the 11th-largest economy in the world It is forecast to grow at just below 4 percent again this year Total economic size and growth is extremely important to total national power. Mexico has a single profound economic problem: According to the O E C D Mexico has the second-highest level of inequality among member nations. 50 percent of Mexico's population lives in poverty Mexico is home to the richest man in the world The primary strategic problem for Mexico is the potential for internal instability driven by inequality. this is not Western-style gradient inequality, but cliff inequality where the poor live utterly different lives from the middle class.
|
Economic collapse causes poverty and social revolutions – leads to a failed state
| 2,347 | 81 | 1,032 | 367 | 13 | 168 | 0.035422 | 0.457766 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,565 |
DoD has also increased their role in the drug war, both by providing military equipment to law enforcement agencies along the border - helping them do their jobs more effectively - and providing training and guidance to agencies on the Mexican side of the border. By executive order, because DoD also has a mandate to assist in the national counterdrug mission, how the drug war progresses is very important to the Pentagon.
|
Longmire 12 (Sylvia, a [medically] retired Air Force captain and former Special Agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigation, Former senior intelligence analyst for the California state fusion center and the California Emergency Management Agency's Situational Awareness Unit, focusing almost exclusively on Mexican drug trafficking organizations and southwest border violence issues, egularly lectured on terrorism in Latin America at the Air Force Special Operations School's Dynamics of International Terrorism course, Masters in Latin American and Carribean studies, 1/13/12, “Is The US Military’s Involvement In Border Security Too Expensive?” http://www.hstoday.us/briefings/correspondents-watch/single-article/is-the-us-militarys-involvement-in-border-security-too-expensive/c7963abc47990eee4cbb12900e9e9533.html)//DR. H
|
DoD has also increased their role in the drug war by providing military equipment to law enforcement agencies along the border - helping them do their jobs more effectively - and providing training and guidance to agencies on the Mexican side of the border
|
B. Violation – their Relations advantage is based off of military facilitation.
| 424 | 79 | 256 | 72 | 12 | 44 | 0.166667 | 0.611111 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,566 |
The United States has made some progress delivering equipment and training to Mexico and Central America under the Mérida Initiative and supported efforts to combat crime and narcotics trafficking. Nevertheless, violence continues to grow and needs are changing across the region as criminals adjust their activities in reaction to increased law enforcement efforts. This year, State revised its strategy and defined new goals, but left out key elements that would facilitate management and accountability. State generally lacks outcome-based measures that define success in the short term and the long term, making it difficult to determine effectiveness and leaving unclear when the Initiative’s goals will be met. Establishing better performance measures could provide Congress and other stakeholders with valuable information on outcomes, enabling them to make more informed decisions on whether or not policies and approaches might need to be revised and in what ways. Regarding program implementation, there are no timelines for future deliveries of some equipment and training, particularly for a range of capacity building programs that will take on a large role going forward. Provision of time frames for the commencement and completion of programs would set expectations for stakeholders, including the Mexican government, which has expressed concerns about the pace of delivery. It would also facilitate coordination and planning for all organizations involved in implementation.
|
GAO 10 (July 2010, Report to Congressional Requesters, “MÉRIDA INITIATIVE: The United States Has Provided Counternarcotics and Anticrime Support but Needs Better Performance Highlights of GAO-10-837, a report to Measures,” pdf)//DR. H
|
The U S has made some progress delivering equipment and training under Mérida This year, State revised its strategy and defined new goals, but left out key elements that would facilitate management and accountability. Establishing better performance measures could provide Congress and other stakeholders with valuable information on outcomes, enabling them to make more informed decisions on whether or not policies and approaches might need to be revised and in what ways. Regarding program implementation, there are no timelines for future deliveries of some equipment and training, Provision of time frames for the commencement and completion of programs would set expectations for stakeholders, including the Mexican government, which has expressed concerns about the pace of delivery. It would also facilitate coordination and planning for all organizations involved in implementation.
|
Solves the case and doesn’t link to politics.
| 1,491 | 45 | 891 | 218 | 8 | 129 | 0.036697 | 0.591743 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,567 |
The engine driving Mexican drug trafficking is demand for drugs in the United States, where wholesale illicit drug proceeds reach tens of billions of dollars each year.31 As long as this level of demand exists, drugs will continue to flow north regardless of the level of deterrence that the security forces deploy.32 In this regard, it is likely that the most efficient use of hundreds of millions of dollars annually is to keep most of this money in the United States and direct it to demand reduction through public health services and programs to reduce drug use, such as improved access to treatment for addiction.
|
Brewer 08 (Stephanie Erin, 6/30/08, International Legal Officer at the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center in Mexico City, “Rethinking the Mérida Initiative: Why the U.S. Must Change Course in its Approach to Mexico’s Drug War,” American University Washington College of Law, pdf)//DR. H
|
The engine driving Mexican drug trafficking is demand for drugs in the U S As long as this level of demand exists, drugs will continue to flow north regardless of the level of deterrence that the security forces deploy. it is likely that the most efficient use of hundreds of millions of dollars annually is to keep most of this money in the United States and direct it to demand reduction through public health services and programs to reduce drug use, such as improved access to treatment for addiction.
|
Text: The United States federal government should end its Merida efforts. The United States federal government should legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.
| 619 | 174 | 505 | 105 | 23 | 89 | 0.219048 | 0.847619 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,568 |
The U.S. must instead prioritize domestic demand reduction and halt the flow of assault weapons over the border if it is to cease exporting both the motive and the means for violent drug trafficking to Mexico. As consensus grows in the region regarding the need to move beyond the inefficient and damaging anti-drug strategies of the last decade, it is crucial that the U.S. government follows through and expands upon recent declarations recognizing the need for domestic action. While an important step forward, these should constitute only the beginning of a profound paradigm shift in this regard in U.S. anti-drug strategies. A failure by the United States to change course fully now will mean not only that it finds itself working largely on the wrong side of the border, but also on the wrong side of history.
|
Brewer 08 (Stephanie Erin, 6/30/08, International Legal Officer at the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center in Mexico City, “Rethinking the Mérida Initiative: Why the U.S. Must Change Course in its Approach to Mexico’s Drug War,” American University Washington College of Law, pdf)//DR. H
|
The U.S. must instead prioritize domestic demand reduction and halt the flow of assault weapons over the border if it is to cease exporting both the motive and the means for violent drug trafficking to Mexico. As consensus grows regarding the need to move beyond the inefficient and damaging anti-drug strategies of the last decade, it is crucial that the U.S. government follows through and expands upon recent declarations recognizing the need for domestic action. A failure by the United States to change course fully now will mean not only that it finds itself working largely on the wrong side of the border, but also on the wrong side of history.
|
Empirics and consensus prove the CPs the best option.
| 816 | 53 | 652 | 137 | 9 | 111 | 0.065693 | 0.810219 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,569 |
A Carnevale Associates study of US drug policy found that consumption from 2002 to 2008 had not changed and remains at eight percent of Americans aged twelve and older.25 It also showed that, though consumption has remained the same, federal spending for supply reduction rose by sixty-four percent whereas spending on demand reduction only rose by nine percent. In light of these bleak statistics, the Obama administration needs to assess its drug policy and decide the future of the Merida Initiative. Various policy alternatives exist for the Merida Initiative at this juncture. This paper will address the three most plausible options in turn, and review the effectiveness of each policy within the established criteria. The first option is to abandon the program by allowing funding to expire, as it was originally allocated through FY 2010 and has been extended until FY 2011. The second option is to continue with the Obama administration’s approach to the Merida Initiative, called “Beyond Merida.” This policy embodies the Merida Initiative’s original goals, but integrates a “shared responsibility” approach to drug control and a larger focus on institution building rather than military spending. The third option is a new approach that integrates aspects of President Obama’s “Beyond Merida” approach, but focuses more on domestic drug and weapons policy as means of lessening demand, and institution building and government support as means of lessening the supply. The criteria used to determine the best policy incorporates the basic economic princples of supply and demand. The theory of supply and demand is fundamental in explaining market economies and most societal outcomes. The problem of drug violence in Mexico can be attributed to heightened demand that has fueled a larger supply. A successful policy would lessen supply through decreased drug production and cross border trafficking. For this to happen, there must be decreased demand—notably, within the United States. The desired outcome is a reduction in violence in Mexico from drug-related activities and a lessened supply of illegal drugs
|
Abu-Hamdeh, 11 Sabrina, Pepperdine University, 1/1, Pepperdine Policy Review, Vol. 4, http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=ppr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dmerida%2Binitiative%2Bsuccess%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%26as_vis%3D1%26oi%3Dscholart%26sa%3DX%26ei%3D1XD6UYihGseSyAG-rIHgDA%26ved%3D0CC0QgQMwAA#search=%22merida%20initiative%20success%22, “The Merida Initiative: An Effective Way of Reducing Violence in Mexico?” | ADM
|
A study of US drug policy found that consumption had not changed federal spending for supply reduction rose by sixty-four percent whereas spending on demand reduction only rose by nine percent the Obama administration needs to assess its drug policy a new approach focuses on domestic drug weapons policy as means of lessening demand The theory of supply and demand is fundamental in explaining market economies The problem of drug violence in Mexico can be attributed to heightened demand there must be decreased demand within the United States The desired outcome is a reduction in violence in Mexico from drug-related activities
|
US demand drives drug violence in mexico – only domestic drug policy reform can solve.
| 2,121 | 86 | 631 | 329 | 15 | 101 | 0.045593 | 0.306991 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,570 |
Thomas Cole argues that the killings in Mexico and movements in the US market for drugs are correlated.47 Drug policy analyst Mark Kleiman agrees that Mexico’s position as the primary transit point for illegal drugs entering the United States is directly linked to US demand. If demand rises, drug violence will rise as well. Kleiman notes that the heaviest drug users are responsible for the largest portion of demand and says that, “taking away the drug dealers’ best customers will reduce their earnings.”48Effective intervention targeted at these drug users is necessary to affect the illegal drug economy. The prevention of future substance abuse could also help shrink the illicit drug market, thereby reducing the stakes for DTO profits that motivates violence.49 Another option to consider is the legalization of certain drugs, something that has been advocated for by the United Nation’s Committee for Crime and Drugs and many political leaders.
|
Abu-Hamdeh, 11 Sabrina, Pepperdine University, 1/1, Pepperdine Policy Review, Vol. 4, http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=ppr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dmerida%2Binitiative%2Bsuccess%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%26as_vis%3D1%26oi%3Dscholart%26sa%3DX%26ei%3D1XD6UYihGseSyAG-rIHgDA%26ved%3D0CC0QgQMwAA#search=%22merida%20initiative%20success%22, “The Merida Initiative: An Effective Way of Reducing Violence in Mexico?” | ADM
|
killings in Mexico and movements in the US market for drugs are correlated Mexico’s position as the primary transit point is directly linked to US demand If demand rises, drug violence will rise as well the heaviest drug users are responsible for the largest portion of demand Effective intervention is necessary The prevention of future substance abuse could also help shrink the illicit drug market Another option is legalization of certain drugs
|
Combating demand is key – direct causal relationship.
| 954 | 53 | 448 | 150 | 8 | 72 | 0.053333 | 0.48 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,571 |
Lastly, many economists and knowledgeable leaders suggest that legalizing certain drugs would be a means of driving their prices down. Without the high price tags attached to illicit drugs, the high-stakes drug wars would most certainly diminish. Simple economic theory explains that high prices stimulate highly competitive markets, but low prices are less attractive and lessen suppliers. Drug legalization is hotly contested and conflicting information suggests that legalizing drugs, such as marijuana, will produce few changes in Mexico’s illicit drug trade and related violence.42 Klimer suggests that marijuana sales make up only part of drug trafficking profits with estimates of between $1.5 and $2 billion in annual gross revenue.43 However, while Klimer also maintains that it is unknown whether reductions in Mexican DTOs’ revenues from exporting marijuana would lead to corresponding decreases in violence, other analysts have suggested that large reductions in revenues could increase violence in the short run but decrease it in the long run.44 Therefore, the legalization of certain drugs and the establishment of government price controls could diminish the surges of violence in Mexico and would satisfy, in part, all three of the criteria established
|
Abu-Hamdeh, 11 Sabrina, Pepperdine University, 1/1, Pepperdine Policy Review, Vol. 4, http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=ppr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dmerida%2Binitiative%2Bsuccess%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%26as_vis%3D1%26oi%3Dscholart%26sa%3DX%26ei%3D1XD6UYihGseSyAG-rIHgDA%26ved%3D0CC0QgQMwAA#search=%22merida%20initiative%20success%22, “The Merida Initiative: An Effective Way of Reducing Violence in Mexico?” | ADM
|
economists and leaders suggest that legalizing certain drugs would be a means of driving their prices down drug wars would most certainly diminish high prices stimulate highly competitive markets large reductions in revenues could increase violence in the short run but decrease it in the long run the legalization of certain drugs and the establishment of government price controls could diminish the surges of violence in Mexico and would satisfy all criteria established
|
Only legalization solves drug violence – expert consensus.
| 1,269 | 58 | 473 | 189 | 8 | 73 | 0.042328 | 0.386243 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,572 |
All these tasks will be easier if the flow of money to the cartels is dramatically slowed down. Do we really want to hand them another trillion dollars over the next three decades?
|
Grillo 12 (Ioan, 11/1/12, “Hit Mexico’s Cartels With Legalization,” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/hit-mexicos-cartels-with-legalization.html)//DR. H
|
All tasks will be easier if the flow of money to the cartels is dramatically slowed down. Do we really want to hand them another trillion dollars over the next three decades?
|
Legalization solves – cuts off revenue.
| 180 | 39 | 174 | 33 | 6 | 32 | 0.181818 | 0.969697 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,573 |
“I think we are in a position now to have a group of members of Congress who are able to spend a little more time and energy in a focused way on this. I think we’ve got a little bit more running room; I think our coalition is broader, and we’ve got people who have not normally been involved in this,” he added, pointing to more conservative members from Colorado who now care about marijuana after the state legalized it in the fall.
|
Seitz-Wald 13 (Alex, 2/8/13, “Why Congress might legalize marijuana (this time),” http://www.salon.com/2013/02/08/why_congress_might_legalize_marijuana_this_time/)//DR. H
|
“I think we are in a position now to have a group of members of Congress who are able to spend a little more time and energy in a focused way on this. I think we’ve got a little bit more running room; I think our coalition is broader, and we’ve got people who have not normally been involved in this,” pointing to more conservative members from Colorado who now care about marijuana after the state legalized it in the fall.
|
CP doesn’t link to politics – prefer recency.
| 434 | 45 | 424 | 83 | 8 | 81 | 0.096386 | 0.975904 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,574 |
This is not to exclude the possibility of U.S. aid to Mexico. Of great relevance would be policies and programs that create viable alternatives to illicit economic activities for Mexicans living in poverty. In terms of public security aid packages, the Mérida
|
Brewer 08 (Stephanie Erin, 6/30/08, International Legal Officer at the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center in Mexico City, “Rethinking the Mérida Initiative: Why the U.S. Must Change Course in its Approach to Mexico’s Drug War,” American University Washington College of Law, pdf)//DR. H
|
This is not to exclude the possibility of U.S. aid to Mexico. Of great relevance would be policies and programs that create viable alternatives to illicit economic activities for Mexicans living in poverty.
|
Mexico Aid still occurs – just not in relation to the drug war.
| 259 | 63 | 206 | 42 | 13 | 33 | 0.309524 | 0.785714 |
Mexico Drug Cartels Negative - HSS 2013.html5
|
Hoya-Spartan Scholars
|
Case Negatives
|
2013
|
5,575 |
With the Senate ready to cast the first floor votes on a landmark immigration bill, House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday he thinks there's a good chance the legislation can be signed into law "by the end of the year."
|
Werner 6 – 11 – 13 AP Staff [Erica Werner, House Speaker John Boehner: Congress can do immigration this year, http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130611/NEWS/130619933/1006]
|
Boehner said he thinks there's a good chance the legislation can be signed into law "by the end of the year."
|
Immigration Reform will pass in the House and Senate now – there will be heated debates. Obama is actively lobbying to get it done.
| 220 | 131 | 109 | 40 | 24 | 21 | 0.6 | 0.525 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,576 |
The measure’s critics are still pressing to prevent that from happening, and seeking to use the negative attention focused on Obama’s administration as a means of doing so.
|
Bloomberg 5 – 23 – 13 [Obama Probes Create Immigration Magic as Bill Advances, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/obama-probes-create-immigration-magic-as-bill-advances.html]
|
The measure’s critics are seeking to use the negative attention focused on Obama’s administration as a means of doing so.
|
Obama’s political capital and avoiding controversial actions will be vital to insuring final passage of the bill.
| 172 | 113 | 121 | 28 | 17 | 20 | 0.607143 | 0.714286 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,577 |
Although Fidel Castro's definitive exit from the scene, and a Cuban government led by someone other than Raúl Castro, would speed up a relaxation of the embargo, such process will mostly depend on US domestic dynamics. The embargo has survived the end of the Cold War primarily as a domestic electoral issue linked to the role the US-based Cuban exile community has played in helping determine the electoral outcome of important swing states such as Florida and New Jersey. Cuban-American lobbying and hefty campaign contributions were additional key factors (Eckstein, 2009, pp. 127–132; Haney & Vanderbush, 2005, p. 72; Rich Kaplowitz, 1998, p. 134). What Cuban-Americans think and feel matters. They were relatively receptive or at least not outright hostile to Obama's early remarks on Cuba and welcomed the lifting of restrictions on their travel and money transfers to the island. The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) fully supported the president's decision to increase this kind of people-to-people exchange (CANF, 2009). Moreover, US opinion polls show considerable backing for a further easing of sanctions that are considered anachronistic and ineffective, even by many Cuban-Americans.4 Washington's Cuba policy has recently been going through a strident debate in Congress, where a series of bipartisan legislative proposals aimed to chip away at various aspects of the embargo are under consideration. Yet, pro-embargo forces, among them Cuban-American legislators and other members of the congressional group Cuba Democracy Caucus, will not go down without a fight, as demonstrated by their strenuous opposition to the aforementioned bills and their attempts to set rules for travel and remittances to Cuba back to what they were under former President George W. Bush.5
|
Spadoni & Sagebien 13 a. assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Augusta State b. associate professor at the School of Business Administration and an adjunct professor in the International Development Studies program in the College of Sustainability at Dalhousie University, Canada [Paolo Spadoni & Julia Sagebien, Will They Still Love Us Tomorrow? Canada-Cuba Business Relations and the End of the US Embargo, Thunderbird International Business Review, Volume 55, Issue 1, pages 77–93, January/February 2013, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tie.21524/full]
|
a relaxation of the embargo will mostly depend on domestic dynamics. The embargo has survived primarily as a domestic electoral issue linked to the role the US-based Cuban exile community has played in helping determine the electoral outcome of important swing states Cuban-American lobbying and hefty campaign contributions were additional key factors What Cuban-Americans think and feel matters. US opinion polls show considerable backing for a further easing of sanctions that are considered anachronistic and ineffective Washington's Cuba policy has recently been going through a strident debate in Congress, where a series of bipartisan legislative proposals aimed to chip away at the embargo are under consideration Yet, pro-embargo forces among them Cuban-American legislators and other members of the congressional group Cuba Democracy Caucus will not go down without a fight as demonstrated by their strenuous opposition to the aforementioned bills and their attempts to set rules for travel and remittances
|
Lifting the embargo will be a massive fight – strong groups will rally against it.
| 1,793 | 82 | 1,016 | 274 | 15 | 150 | 0.054745 | 0.547445 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,578 |
A new report, “Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” by Dr. Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, finds that comprehensive immigration reform that includes a legalization program for unauthorized immigrants and enables a future flow of legal workers would result in a large economic benefit—a cumulative $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years. In stark contrast, a deportation- only policy would result in a loss of $2.6 trillion in GDP over 10 years. Hinojosa uses a computable general equilibrium model based on the historical experience of the 1986 legalization program, and finds that: Comprehensive immigration reform that includes a legalization program for unauthorized immigrants would stimulate the U.S. economy. Immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP by at least 0.84 percent. This would translate into at least a $1.5 trillion cumulative increase in GDP over 10 years, which includes approximately $1.2 trillion in consumption and $256 billion in investment. The benefits of additional GDP growth would be spread broadly throughout the U.S. economy, but immigrant-heavy sectors such as textiles, electronic equipment, and construction would see particularly large increases. The higher earning power of newly legalized workers would mean increased tax revenues of $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in the first three years. Higher personal income would also generate increased consumer spending—enough to support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs in the United States. Experience shows that legalized workers open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses, further stimulating the U.S. economy. Comprehensive immigration reform increases all workers’ wages. The real wages of less-skilled newly legalized workers would increase by roughly $4,405 per year, while higher-skilled workers would see their income increase $6,185 per year. The wages of native-born high-skill and low-skill U.S. workers also increase modestly under comprehensive immigration reform because the “wage floor” rises for all workers. Legalized workers invest more in their human capital, including education, job training, and English-language skills, making them even more productive workers and higher earners. Mass deportation is costly, lowers wages, and harms the U.S. economy. Mass deportation would reduce U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent, amounting to a cumulative $2.6 trillion loss in GDP over 10 years, not including the actual costs of deportation. The Center for American Progress has estimated that mass deportation would cost $206 billion to $230 billion over five years. Wages would rise for less-skilled native-born workers under a mass deportation scenario, but higher-skilled natives’ wages would decrease, and there would be widespread job loss. Studies from various researchers with divergent political perspectives confirm these findings. A report by the libertarian CATO Institute using a similar CGE model came to startlingly similar conclusions. CATO found that legalization would yield significant income gains for American workers and households. Legalization would boost the incomes of U.S. households by $180 billion in 2019. CATO also concluded that tighter restrictions and a reduction in less-skilled immigration would impose large costs on native-born Americans by shrinking the overall economy and lowering worker productivity.
|
Center for American Progress 10 [How Immigration Reform Would Help the Economy, p. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2010/01/14/7130/how-immigration-reform-would-help-the-economy/]
|
A new report, “Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” by Hinojosa-Ojeda, finds that comprehensive immigration reform would result in a large economic benefit Comprehensive immigration reform would stimulate the U.S. economy. Immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP by at least 0.84 percent. This would translate into a $1.5 trillion cumulative increase in GDP The benefits of additional GDP growth would be spread broadly throughout the U.S. economy The higher earning power of newly legalized workers would mean increased tax revenues of $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion Higher personal income would generate increased consumer spending enough to support 900,000 jobs legalized workers open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses, further stimulating the U.S. economy. The real wages of less-skilled newly legalized workers would increase by roughly $4,405 per year, while higher-skilled workers would see their income increase $6,185 per year Studies from various researchers with divergent political perspectives confirm these findings. A report by the libertarian CATO Institute using a similar CGE model came to startlingly similar conclusions. CATO found that legalization would yield significant income gains for American workers and households. Legalization would boost the incomes of U.S. households by $180 billion in 2019. CATO also concluded that tighter restrictions and a reduction in less-skilled immigration would impose large costs on native-born Americans by shrinking the overall economy and lowering worker productivity.
|
Immigration is key to maintaining economic growth
| 3,402 | 49 | 1,608 | 493 | 7 | 230 | 0.014199 | 0.466531 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,579 |
Alas, globalization and automation trends of the last generation have increasingly called the American dream into question for the working classes. Another decade of underinvestment in what is required to remedy this situation will make an isolationist or populist president far more likely because much of the country will question whether an internationalist role makes sense for America — especially if it costs us well over half a trillion dollars in defense spending annually yet seems correlated with more job losses. Lastly, American economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness and wonder about our purport 7ed decline. If this perception becomes more widespread, and the case that we are in decline becomes more persuasive, countries will begin to take actions that reflect their skepticism about America's future. Allies and friendswill doubt our commitment and may pursue nuclear weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian Gulf and Western Pacific regions will likely become less stable. Major war will become more likely. When running for president last time, Obama eloquently articulated big foreign policy visions: healing America's breach with the Muslim world, controlling global climate change, dramatically curbing global poverty through development aid, moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. These were, and remain, worthy if elusive goals. However, for Obama or his successor, there is now amuch more urgent big-picture issue: restoring U.S. economic strength. Nothing else is really possible if that fundamentalprerequisite to effective foreign policy is not reestablished.
|
O’Hanlon 12 Kenneth G. Lieberthal, Director of the John L. Thornton China Center and Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy and Global Economy and Development at the Brookings Institution, former Professor at the University of Michigan [“The Real National Security Threat: America's Debt,” Los Angeles Times, July 10th, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10-economy-foreign-policy-lieberthal-ohanlon]
|
American economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness take actions that reflect their skepticism about America's future Allies and friendswill doubt our commitment and may pursue nuclear weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing around their weight less stable Major war will become more likely. Obama eloquently articulated big foreign policy visions: healing America's breach with the Muslim world, controlling global climate change, dramatically curbing global poverty through development aid, moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. These were, and remain, worthy if elusive goals. However, for Obama or his successor, there is now amuch more urgent big-picture issue: restoring U.S. economic strength. Nothing else is really possible if that fundamentalprerequisite to effective foreign policy is not reestablished
|
Economic decline risks multiple global nuclear wars
| 1,785 | 51 | 941 | 264 | 7 | 133 | 0.026515 | 0.503788 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,580 |
After months of defending immigration reform to conservatives, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said earlier this week that, as the bill stands, he won’t vote for it. So, is Rubio’s pronouncement a death knell for the legislation’s chances?
|
Washington Post 6 – 6 – 13 [Why Marco Rubio is against his own immigration bill — and what it means, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/06/why-marco-rubio-is-against-his-own-immigration-bill-and-what-it-means/]
|
Rubio said as the bill stands, he won’t vote for it. So, is Rubio’s pronouncement a death knell
|
Immigration will pass – Rubio will get on board
| 233 | 47 | 95 | 37 | 9 | 18 | 0.243243 | 0.486486 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,581 |
The bipartisan House group that’s been working for years on an immigration bill is about to break up without anything to show for it. ABC News reports that the negotiations crashed on the shoals of whether immigrants would have access to government-subsidized health care during their 15-year path to citizenship. So what comes next? “The House is likely to pass several smaller bills that address immigration reform, but would not include a pathway to citizenship.”
|
Klein 6 – 5 – 13 Washington Post political insider [Ezra Klein, The House won’t have a bipartisan immigration bill. That’s (maybe) okay., http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/05/the-house-wont-have-a-bipartisan-immigration-bill-thats-maybe-okay/]
|
The bipartisan House group that’s been working on an immigration bill is about to break up without anything to show for it. the negotiations crashed So what comes next? “The House is likely to pass several smaller bills that address immigration reform, but would not include a pathway to citizenship
|
Will pass – smaller house bills good
| 466 | 36 | 299 | 75 | 7 | 50 | 0.093333 | 0.666667 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,582 |
In Spanish and English, the Senate pushed contentious immigration legislation over early procedural hurdles with deceptive ease on Tuesday as President Barack Obama insisted the "moment is now" to give 11 million immigrants in the United States illegally a chance at citizenship.
|
AP 6 – 11 – 13 [Immigration debate clears procedural Senate hurdle, http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/22555748/immigration-bill-nears-critical-test]
|
the Senate pushed contentious immigration legislation over early procedural hurdles with deceptive ease as Obama insisted the "moment is now"
|
Will pass the senate
| 279 | 20 | 141 | 42 | 4 | 20 | 0.095238 | 0.47619 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,583 |
The Republican-led House will take its deepest dive yet into immigration reform this week, rushing to play catchup with the Senate on the chief domestic policy battle this year.
|
Politico 6 – 17 – 13 [Immigration momentum grows in House, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/house-immigration-bill-92941.html]
|
The Republican-led House will take its deepest dive yet into immigration reform
|
Will pass – momentum & Boehner’s support in the House
| 177 | 53 | 79 | 29 | 10 | 12 | 0.344828 | 0.413793 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,584 |
A comprehensive immigration reform bill that can only pass through one congressional chamber "doesn't do anybody any good," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., warned Sunday, two days before the Senate is slated to launch procedural votes on a weeks-long debate about legislation that would include a pathway to citizenship.
|
CBS NEWS 6 – 10 – 13 [Immigration: House, Senate looking for common ground, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57588418/immigration-house-senate-looking-for-common-ground/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsTravelGuru+(Travel+Guru%3A+CBSNews.com]
|
immigration that can only pass one chamber "doesn't do anybody any good," Johnson warned
|
Will pass the senate – has the votes
| 314 | 36 | 88 | 48 | 8 | 14 | 0.166667 | 0.291667 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,585 |
Supporters of U.S. immigration reform are hoping that the smooth and drama-free passage of their legislation through a Senate committee - a departure from almost everything that has happened in Congress over the past four years - will boost the likelihood of the bill winning full Senate approval.
|
Reuters 5 – 22 – 13 [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/22/us-usa-immigration-idUSBRE94K00L20130522]
|
Supporters of immigration are hoping that the smooth and drama-free passage through a Senate committee will boost the likelihood of the bill winning full Senate approval
|
Will pass – bipartisan support in the Senate
| 297 | 44 | 169 | 48 | 8 | 26 | 0.166667 | 0.541667 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,586 |
John Boehner wants immigration reform to pass. To get it done, the House speaker will have to capitalize on the widening gap among conservatives, and he’s preparing the groundwork to do it.
|
Frates 6 – 18 – 13 National Journal Staff [Chris Frates, Boehner Aims to Move Immigration by Capitalizing on a Conservative Rift, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/boehner-aims-to-move-immigration-by-capitalizing-on-a-conservative-rift-20130618]
|
Boehner wants immigration to pass. To get it done, the House speaker will have to capitalize on the widening gap among conservatives, and he’s preparing the groundwork to do it.
|
House GOP leadership is on board – want a bill
| 189 | 46 | 177 | 32 | 10 | 30 | 0.3125 | 0.9375 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,587 |
However, there are some who warn that the tides of Obama's political fortunes could turn again. He still wields a lot of power in the White House, including the ability to push an agenda using presidential executive orders.
|
Guardian 5 – 17 – 13 [Beleaguered Obama looks to fight back as critics ask: is he a lame duck already?, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/17/barack-obama-beleagured-lame-duck]
|
there are some who warn that the tides of Obama's political fortunes could turn again He still wields a lot of power including executive orders
|
Obama’s loss of influence hasn’t effected immigration yet
| 223 | 57 | 143 | 38 | 8 | 25 | 0.210526 | 0.657895 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,588 |
In his news conference on Tuesday, Obama expressed confidence that Congress would overhaul immigration laws – what he said would be an “historic achievement” – while he was less optimistic about whether he could achieve a grand bargain on the debt. Somehow, the election and public opinion more generally have produced two different outcomes. On immigration, Senate Republicans – led by 2016 presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) – are eager to strike and sell a deal. But they seem content to stand their ground on the budget. Why? The question has prompted much discussion about the structural forces shaping Congress – and Obama’s limited power to overcome them. The conventional thinking is that on immigration, Republicans are in survival mode: They recognize they need Hispanics to win national elections. On the other hand, Republicans do not see much to lose in a budget fight with Obama, and they see much more to lose if they make themselves vulnerable to primary challenges from the right. This argument is elegant in that it looks at the incentives facing Republicans, and to a large degree it is fair. But it’s also an oversimplification. Obama’s role has been more important than it may seem in shaping the political forces in Washington, but the underlying dynamics favoring an immigration deal and auguring against a budget agreement are even stronger than many recognize. In asking why Republicans seem responsive to public opinion on immigration but impervious on the budget, consider the following chart: It’s extremely unlikely that Republicans would be considering an immigration deal in the absence of Obama’s aggressive pursuit of an overhaul. In words and action, Obama forced Republicans to take a position on the issue. He also created space for more voters to support a pathway to citizenship by being quite tough on illegal immigrants facing deportation – often to the displeasure of the Hispanic community. Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, staked out a far different position, opposing any pathway to citizenship. Republicans were savaged on Election Day: exit polling showed Obama winning Hispanics by 44 percentage points.
|
Washington Post 5-2 [“Why is immigration going so much better for Obama than the budget”, May 2nd, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/02/why-is-immigration-going-so-much-better-for-obama-than-the-budget/]
|
Obama expressed confidence that Congress would overhaul immigration laws On immigration, Senate Republicans are eager to strike and sell a deal. Republicans are in survival mode: They recognize they need Hispanics to win national elections This argument is elegant in that it looks at the incentives facing Republicans Bu ping the political forces in Washington, the underlying dynamics favoring an immigration deal are even stronger than many recognize. It’s extremely unlikely that Republicans would be considering an immigration deal in the absence of Obama’s aggressive pursuit of an overhaul. In words and action, Obama forced Republicans to take a position on the issue. He also created space for more voters to support a pathway to citizenship by being quite tough on illegal immigrants facing deportation
|
Obama’s capital is critical to overcome those differences to negotiate a deal
| 2,188 | 78 | 812 | 347 | 12 | 125 | 0.034582 | 0.360231 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,589 |
US President Barack Obama made an outspoken pitch for a Senate bill on comprehensive immigration reform on Tuesday, branding those opposed to it insincere about fixing a badly broken system.
|
Hindustan Times 6 – 11 – 13 [Obama back in fray on immigration reform, http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Americas/Obama-back-in-fray-on-immigration-reform/Article1-1074774.aspx]
|
Obama made an outspoken pitch for a Senate bill on immigration reform branding those opposed to it insincere
|
Obama spending capital on immigration – fighting to secure votes
| 190 | 64 | 108 | 30 | 10 | 18 | 0.333333 | 0.6 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,590 |
In a Washington Post interview last week, senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer acknowledged that the White House needed to keep supporters happy. “The greatest danger zone a president can be in is when he is being attacked on the left and the right,” Pfeiffer said. “When they are reading off the same talking points, that’s when presidencies fall apart.”
|
The Hill 6 – 17 – 13 [Who is he? Obama keeps allies, enemies guessing in second term, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/305851-who-is-he-obama-keeps-allies-enemies-guessing-in-second-term]
|
Pfeiffer acknowledged the White House needed to keep supporters happy. “The greatest danger zone a president can be in is when he is being attacked on the left and the right,”
|
Obama pushing immigration – keeping supporters happy
| 346 | 52 | 175 | 58 | 7 | 31 | 0.12069 | 0.534483 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,591 |
The clock is ticking for immigration reform. On Tuesday, President Obama urged Congress to move quickly on the sweeping reform bill the Senate began debating this week. “There’s no reason Congress can’t get this done by the end of the summer,” he said. The president’s urgency was reminiscent of the way President George W. Bush pushed for his own immigration reform package in 2007. Six years ago this Wednesday, Bush visited Capitol Hill to “make a personal appeal” to Republican senators on behalf of his plan, which included a goal that they vote before Congress’s July 4 recess—the same target recently set for this year’s Senate reform effort by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer.
|
Kelley 6 – 12 – 13 Swamp Land Staff [Caroline Kelley, Can Congress Vote On Immigration Reform Before Its Vacation?, http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/12/can-congress-pass-immigration-reform-before-its-vacation/]
|
The clock is ticking for immigration Obama urged Congress to move quickly week. “There’s no reason Congress can’t get this done The president’s urgency was reminiscent of the way Bush pushed for his own immigration reform
|
Delay threatens immigration passage
| 684 | 35 | 221 | 114 | 4 | 36 | 0.035088 | 0.315789 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,592 |
Fortunately for those inside the West Wing, some researchers paint a more optimistic picture regarding presidents’ potential for passing important planks of their legislative agenda. Covington et al. (1995), Barrett and Eshbaugh-Soha (2007), Edwards III and Barrett (2000), Kellerman (1984), Light (1982), Peterson (1990), and Rudalevige (2002) all observe that presidents secure greater support for their ‘priority’ items, and when they exert ‘effort’ pushing them. In addition, Covington (1987) concludes that White House officials can occasionally win greater support among legislators by working behind the scenes, while Canes-Wrone (2001, 2005) shows that presidents can induce support from a recalcitrant Congress by strategically ‘going public’ when advocating popular proposals (see also Kernell (1993)). Sullivan (1987, 1988) finds that presidents can amass winning congressional coalitions by changing members’ positions as a bill moves through the legislative process.
|
BECKMANN & KUMAR 11 Professor of Political Science, UC, Irvine [Matthew N. Beckmann and Vimal Kumar, How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking, Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3
|
some researchers paint a more optimistic picture regarding presidents’ potential for passing important planks of their legislative agenda. Covington et al. Barrett and Eshbaugh-Soha Edwards and Barrett Kellerman Light Peterson and Rudalevige ( all observe that presidents secure greater support for their ‘priority’ items, and when they exert ‘effort’ pushing them Covington concludes that White House officials can occasionally win greater support among legislators by working behind the scenes, presidents can induce support from a recalcitrant Congress by strategically ‘going public’ presidents can amass winning congressional coalitions by changing members’ positions as a bill moves through the legislative process
|
1. Hirsh is an indict of the meme of capital – we have warrants specific to the immigration bill.
| 979 | 98 | 720 | 135 | 19 | 99 | 0.140741 | 0.733333 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,593 |
Before developing presidents’ lobbying options for building winning coalitions on Capitol Hill, it is instructive to consider cases where the president has no political capital and no viable lobbying options. In such circumstances of imposed passivity (beyond offering a proposal), a president’s fate is clear: his proposals are subject to pivotal voters’ preferences. So if a president lacking political capital proposes to change some far-off status quo, that is, one on the opposite side of the median or otherwise pivotal voter, a (Condorcet) winner always exists, and it coincides with the pivot’s predisposition (Brady and Volden, 1998; Krehbiel, 1998) (see also Black (1948) and Downs (1957)). Considering that there tends to be substantial ideological distance between presidents and pivotal voters, positive presidential influence without lobbying, then, is not much influence at all.11
|
BECKMANN & KUMAR 11 Professor of Political Science, UC, Irvine [Matthew N. Beckmann and Vimal Kumar, How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking, Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3
|
, it is instructive to consider cases where the president has no political capital In such circumstances of imposed passivity a president’s fate is clear: his proposals are subject to pivotal voters’ preferences So if a president lacking political capital proposes to change some far-off status quo, a winner always exists, and it coincides with the pivot’s predisposition positive presidential influence without lobbying, then, is not much influence at all.
|
B. Losing capital hurts
| 895 | 23 | 458 | 132 | 4 | 70 | 0.030303 | 0.530303 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,594 |
To woo your enemy, do not drop an ox in his soup. That isn’t an ancient maxim, but the idea behind it is so self-evident, I don't need to find Sun Tzu’s version to know it’s true. When you are trying to build trust with someone who does not trust you, don't give them new reasons not to trust you.
|
DICKERSON 3 – 21 – 13 CBS Political Director [John Dickerson, How Not to Woo Republicans, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/if_barack_obama_wants_a_grand_bargain_with_republicans_he_needs_to_build.single.html]
|
To woo your enemy, do not drop an ox in his soup I don't need to find Sun Tzu’s version to know it’s true When you are trying to build trust don't give them new reasons not to trust you
|
Winners don’t win – Needs to build trust not alienate
| 297 | 53 | 185 | 60 | 10 | 40 | 0.166667 | 0.666667 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,595 |
Even some Democrats are doubtful that Mr. Obama's latest efforts will bear fruit. Senate Democrats believe the White House had far more leverage at the end of 2012, when Republicans were eager to avoid across-the-board tax increases under what was called the fiscal cliff.
|
WSJ 3 - 6 - 13 President Woos GOP to Seek Broad Dealhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323628804578344083964807590.html
|
Even some Democrats are doubtful Obama's efforts will bear fruit. Senate Democrats believe the White House had far more leverage at the end of 2012,
|
Obama needs allies – influence lower than it was
| 272 | 48 | 148 | 44 | 9 | 25 | 0.204545 | 0.568182 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,596 |
The ceremonies are all over and Congress has slunk back into Washington, meaning President Obama's second term can now truly begin. Obama laid out an impressive and optimistic agenda in his speech on Monday, which leads to the question of how much of this agenda will actually be passed into law. Obama faces a Senate with a Democratic edge, but not a filibuster-proof edge. Obama also faces a House with fewer Republicans in it, but still enough for a solid majority. From the viewpoint of the past two years, this seems to indicate that not much of what Obama wants will get done. But perhaps -- just perhaps, mind you -- things will be a little different for the next two years.
|
WEIGANT 1 – 23 – 13 Political writer and blogger at ChrisWeigant.com & Huffington [Chris Weigant, Handicapping Obama's Second Term Agenda, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/obama-second-term_b_2537802.html]
|
Obama laid out an optimistic agenda Obama faces a Senate with a Democratic edge, but not a filibuster-proof edge Obama also faces a House with Republicans a solid majority this seems to indicate that not much of what Obama wants will get done
|
Agenda finite – adding things kills other items
| 681 | 47 | 242 | 122 | 8 | 43 | 0.065574 | 0.352459 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,597 |
Has Slate’s John Dickerson been replaced with a pod person? If not, the CBS Political Director is exuding signs of schizophrenia – or sheer forgetfulness. While in January Dickerson counseled the president to "go for the throat" of the Republican Party, in today's piece at the online opinion journal he's calling for Obama to court Republicans on a "grand bargain" to avert the looming debt crisis.
|
NEWS BUSTERS 3 – 22 – 13 [CBS Political Director Now: Obama Shouldn't Agitate GOP; Back in January: 'Go For The Throat,' Mr. President, http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-vespa/2013/03/22/180-turn-cbs-political-director-says-obama-shouldnt-agitate-gop-said-go-]
|
Has Dickerson been replaced with a pod person? the CBS Political Director is exuding signs of schizophrenia – or sheer forgetfulness in January Dickerson counseled the president to "go for the throat" of the Republican Party in today's piece he's calling for Obama to court Republicans on a "grand bargain
|
Even Dickerson has switched positions – Obama doesn’t have the positioning to gets wins going
| 399 | 93 | 305 | 66 | 15 | 50 | 0.227273 | 0.757576 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,598 |
1. Legalizing the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would boost the nation’s economy. It would add a cumulative $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product—the largest measure of economic growth—over 10 years. That’s because immigration reform that puts all workers on a level playing field would create a virtuous cycle in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on the wages of both American and immigrant workers. Higher wages and even better jobs would translate into increased consumer purchasing power, which would benefit the U.S. economy as a whole. 2. Tax revenues would increase. The federal government would accrue $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue over just three years if the 11 million undocumented immigrants were legalized. And states would benefit. Texas, for example, would see a $4.1 billion gain in tax revenue and the creation of 193,000 new jobs if its approximately 1.6 million undocumented immigrants were legalized. 3. Harmful state immigration laws are damaging state economies. States that have passed stringent immigration measures in an effort to curb the number of undocumented immigrants living in the state have hurt some of their key industries, which are held back due to inadequate access to qualified workers. A farmer in Alabama, where the state legislature passed the anti-immigration law HB 56 in 2011, for example, estimated that he lost up to $300,000 in produce in 2011 because the undocumented farmworkers who had skillfully picked tomatoes from his vines in years prior had been forced to flee the state. 4. A path to citizenship would help families access health care. About a quarter of families where at least one parent is an undocumented immigrant are uninsured, but undocumented immigrants do not qualify for coverage under the Affordable Care Act, leaving them dependent on so-called safety net hospitals that will see their funding reduced as health care reforms are implemented. Without being able to apply for legal status and gain health care coverage, the health care options for undocumented immigrants and their families will shrink. 5. U.S. employers need a legalized workforce. Nearly half of agricultural workers, 17 percent of construction workers, and 12 percent of food preparation workers nationwide lacking legal immigration status. But business owners—from farmers to hotel chain owners—benefit from reliable and skilled laborers, and a legalization program would ensure that they have them. 6. In 2011, immigrant entrepreneurs were responsible for more than one in four new U.S. businesses. Additionally, immigrant businesses employ one in every 10 people working for private companies. Immigrants and their children founded 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies, which collectively generated $4.2 trillion in revenue in 2010—more than the GDP of every country in the world except the United States, China, and Japan. Reforms that enhance legal immigration channels for high-skilled immigrants and entrepreneurs while protecting American workers and placing all high-skilled workers on a level playing field will promote economic growth, innovation, and workforce stability in the United States. 7. Letting undocumented immigrants gain legal status would keep families together. More than 5,100 children whose parents are undocumented immigrants are in the U.S. foster care system, according to a 2011 report, because their parents have either been detained by immigration officials or deported and unable to reunite with their children. If undocumented immigrants continue to be deported without a path to citizenship enabling them to remain in the U.S. with their families, up to 15,000 children could be in the foster care system by 2016 because their parents were deported, and most child welfare departments do not have the resources to handle this increase. 8. Young undocumented immigrants would add billions to the economy if they gained legal status. Passing the DREAM Act—legislation that proposes to create a roadmap to citizenship for immigrants who came to the United States as children—would put 2.1 million young people on a pathway to legal status, adding $329 billion to the American economy over the next two decades. 9. And DREAMers would boost employment and wages. Legal status and the pursuit of higher education would create an aggregate 19 percent increase in earnings for young undocumented immigrants who would benefit from the DREAM Act by 2030. The ripple effects of these increased wages would create $181 billion in induced economic impact, 1.4 million new jobs, and $10 billion in increased federal revenue. 10. Significant reform of the high-skilled immigration system would benefit certain industries that require high-skilled workers. Immigrants make up 23 percent of the labor force in high-tech manufacturing and information technology industries, and immigrants more highly educated, on average, than the native-born Americans working in these industries. For every immigrant who earns an advanced degree in one of these fields at a U.S. university, 2.62 American jobs are created.
|
Beadle 12 [Amanda Peterson Beadle, Think Progress, Dec 10, 2012, “Top 10 Reasons Why The U.S. Needs Comprehensive Immigration Reform” http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/10/1307561/top-10-reasons-why-the-us-needs-comprehensive-immigration-reform-that-includes-a-path-to-citizenship/]
|
1. Legalizing undocumented immigrants in the United States would boost the nation’s economy. It would add a cumulative $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product—the largest measure of economic growth—over 10 years. immigration reform that puts all workers on a level playing field would create a virtuous cycle in which legal status and labor rights exert upward pressure on the wages of both American and immigrant workers. Higher wages and even better jobs would translate into increased consumer purchasing power, which would benefit the U.S. economy as a whole. 2. Tax revenues would increase. The federal government would accrue $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue over just three years if the 11 million undocumented immigrants were legalized. And states would benefit Harmful state immigration laws are damaging state economies. States that have passed stringent immigration measures in an effort to curb the number of undocumented immigrants living in the state have hurt some of their key industries, which are held back due to inadequate access to qualified workers U.S. employers need a legalized workforce. Nearly half of agricultural workers, 17 percent of construction workers, and 12 percent of food preparation workers nationwide lacking legal immigration status. But business owners—from farmers to hotel chain owners—benefit from reliable and skilled laborers, and a legalization program would ensure that they have them. 6. In 2011, immigrant entrepreneurs were responsible for more than one in four new U.S. businesses. Additionally, immigrant businesses employ one in every 10 people working for private companies. Immigrants and their children founded 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies, which collectively generated $4.2 trillion in revenue in 2010 Reforms will promote economic growth, innovation, and workforce stability in the United States. 7. . Young undocumented immigrants would add billions to the economy if they gained legal status Legal status and the pursuit of higher education would create an aggregate 19 percent increase in earnings for young undocumented immigrants who would benefit from the DREAM Act by 2030. The ripple effects of these increased wages would create $181 billion in induced economic impact, 1.4 million new jobs, and $10 billion in increased federal revenue. 10. Significant reform of the high-skilled immigration system would benefit certain industries that require high-skilled workers. Immigrants make up 23 percent of the labor force in high-tech manufacturing and information technology industries, and immigrants more highly educated, on average, than the native-born Americans working in these industries. For every immigrant who earns an advanced degree in one of these fields at a U.S. university, 2.62 American jobs are created.
|
Immigration reforms key to the economy
| 5,154 | 39 | 2,828 | 795 | 6 | 427 | 0.007547 | 0.537107 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
5,599 |
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre–eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre–eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self–reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic–security debate and deserves more attention.
|
Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction – U.S. Department of Defense, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises”, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213–215)
|
economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre–eminent power and the bloody transition from one pre–eminent leader to the next economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power increasing the risk of miscalculation even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states if the expectations of future trade decline the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could trigger decreased trade expectations others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during economic downturn presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self–reinforce each other Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism "Diversionary theory" suggests when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states periods of weak economic performance in the U S are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels
|
Decline cause miscalculation and conflict – prefer statistically significant evidence
| 4,441 | 85 | 1,711 | 647 | 10 | 251 | 0.015456 | 0.387944 |
Politics Disadvantage - Immigration - Emory 2013.html5
|
Emory (ENDI)
|
Disadvantages
|
2013
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.